





;> -S-. 




^d* * 
<i5 Q 































^di 



./% 



\> * * * o , <^u v> ^ * o , +& 

A V .ft 5> * ^ /". r .« S» * V 






s 




W . 















^d< 



\ ^c* : 















,P 







°o'"'^^\^ 















7s ^ ^ 



aH O 



lV^ 







&: % ^ / 



^V 



4& 









- \^ :. 






■V 



- ^.^ 
^ ^ 






py ^° 



w ^ ^ ■•»• ft SJ * ^ 

,4'; ^ d^ ."^6&\ S.^ 









V ^ 







* # 









<* o 










<H cu - llSl? ° <H a 



v 




He 



«><*> 



rt> ^ 












Or < 






•J? ^ 







V * ^ * ° a 

VST 




-% 











•»^£ 







"W 




-,<% 



* 4 ^ 



M* ^tt\%^ 











>- W * 



"W 









* 4 ^ 



^ <?* 










^ 













^> 






^ 






& 



& 



S 



A J 



rO' * * 



LECTURES 




ON 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



» 
BY 



ENOCH POND, D.D. : 



PROFESSOR IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, BANGOR. 



FOURTH EDITION. 



BOSTON: 

CONGREGATIONAL PUBLISHING SOCIETY, 

CONGREGATIONAL HOUSE. 

1875. 



/T7S' 






STJ 



&/■ 



DEDICATION IN MEMOEIAM. 



To the memory of my venerated instructor, the late Dr. Nathanael. 
Emmons, of Franklin, I desire to dedicate the following Lectures. As my 
guardian and guide, under God, in the formation of my Theological Sys- 
tem, the tribute is justly and most appropriately his due. Though holding, 
in general, the same doctrines with Dr. Emmons, I have not been a servile 
follower of him ; nor did he wish any of his pupils to be so. He accorded 
to them the same liberty which he claimed for himself. But all my recol- 
lections of him are most agreeable and respectful, bordering upon venera- 
tion. His ready wit, his sociability and pleasantry, his advices and rebukes, 
his questions and answers, his strong objections, his searching criticisms, 
his fatherly suggestions and counsels, — all calculated to stimulate thought, 
and guide it into the most proper channels, — have left impressions upon 
me which cannot be effaced. To the highest style of biblical learning and 
historical research he made no pretensions. But for a love of the Bible and 
its holy truths ; for logical acuteness and consistency in stating and defend- 
ing those truths ; for a crystal clearness of language in setting them forth ; 
and for a stirring application of them to the consciences and hearts of men, 
— he has left no superior, and few equals ; and his heart was ever as warm 
in the service of God and his generation as his head was clear. His piety, 
though never obtrusive, was deep and earnest. Of this those most closely 
conversant with him had constant proof. As one of the generation who 
knew him intimately, and whom he directly served, — a generation now 
rapidly passing away, — I have thought it my duty, as it is my delight, to 
record this testimonial of Dr. Emmons, and to place it at the head of this 
humble volume. "The righteous shall be had in everlasting remem- 
brance. The memory of the just is blessed." 

ENOCH POND. 



Theological Seminary, Bangor, January 5, 1866. 



PREFACE 



. The history of this volume may be given in a few words. For more 
than twenty years I was Professor of Theology in the Seminary at Bangor, 
giving instructions, at the same time, as I was able, in Ecclesiastical His- 
tory. At length, at my suggestion, Dr. Harris was appointed to the chair 
of Theology, and I was transferred to the department of History. Of 
course the theological lectures which I had written were no longer needed 
or used in the Seminary, and I was requested by the late Secretary of the 
Congregational Board to prepare them for publication by that body. In 
due time they were prepared, were read and accepted by a committee of 
the Board, and the expectation was that they would soon be published. 
But, in consequence of the war, the publication was suspended, and has 
remained suspended until the present time. The publishing of them has 
now been undertaken, and is to be carried through. 

For the sentiments advanced in the Lectures, I make no apology. They 
are such, in the general, as have been held by the great body of our 
churches and ministers for more than half a century, and are commonly 
known as the New England Theology. They are supposed to be strictly 
Calvinistic ; and yet, on some points, they vary in statement from the views 
of the old school Calvinists. The differences, however, are more in state- 
ment than in substance, and by candid inquiry and discussion might be 
chiefly if not entirely removed. 

In point of church government, the Lectures will be found to be Congre- 
gational. With the convictions of the writer, they could not be otherwise. 
Yet I have endeavored to treat those who think differently on the subject 
with candor and kindness. 

The form of the Lectures has grown out of the plan of study pursued at 
the Seminary. In entering upon my duties as a teacher of Theology, I 
resolved to pursue, so far as possible in a public institution, the method of 
the old clerical New England teachers. Accordingly, when entering upon 
a topic, I first gave out a list of books to be consulted. After a day or two, 
the class came together, a lecture was read, and the whole subject was 
freely discussed. On some of the more difficult subjects, two or more lec- 
tures were read, and the discussion was continued. At the close of the 
discussion, each member of the class was required to prepare an essay on 



VI PREFACE. 

the subject. At a subsequent session, the essays were read and remarked 
upon, and this brought the whole subject under discussion again. The 
topic in hand being thus disposed of, another was taken up and treated in 
the same way ; and thus the course of study was pursued until all the topics 
embraced in it had been investigated. 

I refer to our method of study, only as it serves to explain and to justify 
the form of the Lectures. They are not sermons, like those of Dr. Dwight, 
which were delivered to a public assembly on the Sabbath. Neither are 
they mere technical, scientific forms, to be enlarged upon, ex tempore, by 
the lecturer, and to be taken down in notes by those who hear them. 
They are, rather, theological essays, written out in full, and read to the 
students, not to be servilely copied or imitated, but to awaken thought and 
interest, and to assist them in the difficult work of writing which was to 
follow. 

Prepared in this way, and for such a purpose, the Lectures are adapted 
to be read and studied, not only by ministers and theological students, but 
by intelligent Christians generally. They are adapted to be used in theo- 
logical classes, should any such be formed in our congregations. They are 
adapted and intended for a somewhat general circulation. Whether they 
shall obtain such, a circulation, it will be for the public to decide. My 
most earnest desire is that they may be instrumental in diffusing a correct 
and connected knowledge of gospel truth, and in guiding my Christian 
brethren and sisters, and all who may consult them, in the right way of 
the Lord. 

ENOCH POND. 



Theological Seminary, Bangor, November 26, 1866. 



CONTENTS 



LECTURE I. 

EXISTENCE OF GOD. 

Page 
God a personal Being. His existence cannot be proved on the mere authority of Scrip; 
tare. A priori reasonings to prove his existence. The idea of God not innate, and 
not a matter of personal consciousness. Proposed to follow the example of the sacred 
writers, and reason from effect to cause. Assumptions involved in this kind of reason* 
ing. The existence of God proved from the existence of matter, even in its elements ; 
from the compounds of matter; from existing organizations of matter; from the 
existence of mind; from the necessity of a sustaining, moving power in the universe; 
from the existence of such a hook as the Bible; from miracles; from retributive provi* 
dences; from answers to prayer; from God's works of grace; from the witness within 
ourselves ; from the general consent of mankind. Proofs of the divine existence clear and 
convincing, 25 



LECTURE II 



ATHEISTICAL OBJECTIONS, 

The objection of material, specific tendencies. Also, of inherent, material life. The de* 
velopment theory. The doctrine of chance. Objections to the argument from design. 
Everything ascribed to nature. The Creator of the world may not have been the first 
cause. Creation an impossibility. Imperfections in what are called the works of 
God, 41 



LECTURE ILL 



THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 



God a Spirit; self-existent; eternally existent; independent; omnipresent; omnipotent; 
omniscient; infinite in wisdom; a free moral agent; infinitely holy, just and good, and 
happy. God is one, ............... 49 



Till CONTENTS. 

LECTURfi IV. 

NEED OF A REVELATION. 

Page 
A revelation needed to disclose new and important truths; to confirm many things taught by 
reason ; to furnish new motives for the performance of duty. All this illustrated in the 
religions of heathen nations; in their philosophies, and in their morals. If a revelation is 
60 much needed, why not given to all men? This question answered 59 

LECTURE V. 

THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 



The word canon defined. The canon of the Old Testament settled by our Saviour. His 
Old Testament the same as ours. Reasons for rejecting the apocryphal books. The 
canon of the New Testament not settled at once, nor by any decisive act of the whole 
church, but by the authority of the Apostles and early Christian fathers. The prin- 
ciples on which it was settled, and proof that it was settled right. Reasons for re- 
jecting the apocryphal books of the New Testament. An objection of the Romanists 
answered, 68 



LECTURE VI. 

AUTHENTICITY OR GENUINENESS OF SCRIPTURE. 



Authenticity of Scripture defined. No valid evidence against it. Stronger reasons for it 
than for the authenticity of any other ancient writings. The difficulties of supposing 
our sacred books forgeries. The testimony of heathens and heretics to their au- 
thenticity. Their authenticity proved from their style. The different books confirm 
the authenticity one of another. The proofs of their authenticity continually in- 
creasing, . 79 



LECTURE VII. 

THE UNCORRUPTEDNESS OF SCRIPTURE. 



No proof of essential alterations. Next to impossible that the Scriptures should have 
been essentially corrupted. Great care of the Jews and Christians to preserve them 
accurate. The subject has been thoroughly investigated. A vast proportion of the 
different readings of no importance. A few passages may have been intentionally 
Altered, 87 



CONTENTS. IX 



LECTURE Yin. 

THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE. 

Page 

The truth of Scripture inferred from its authenticity. Testimony of the early enemies of 
Christianity to its truth. The testimony of the Apostles and Evangelists. This conforms 
to all the laws of valid testimony, and is conclusive. The truth of Scripture proved from 
existing facts. Also, from the conscious experience of Christians. Arguments for the 
truth of Scripture constantly increasing .93 



LECTURE IX. 



THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OP SCRIPTURE. 



The divine authority of Scripture proved from its truth; from miracles; from prophecy; 
from the rapid propagation of Christianity ; from the nature and excellence of its doctrine; 
from the purity of its moral code ; from its fulness ; from its exact adaptedness to human 
wants ; from the harmony of its several parts ; from the peculiar manner of the sacred 
writers ; from the excellent power of the gospel ; and from the witness which the Christian 
has to its divine original in his own soul, 106 



LECTURE X. 



THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE. 



The subject explained. Inspiration probable, ct, priori. Proved from the style and manner 
of the sacred writers. Much of the Bible must be inspired, if true. The sacred writers 
had the promise of inspiration. They claimed it. They assert it one of another, and of 
the Scriptures generally. Inspiration the doctrine of the church in all ages. Objections 
considered. Importance of the doctrine, 121 



LECTURE XL 



THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 



There are established principles of interpreting language. From these many depart in inter- 
preting the Bible. Importance of adhering to them in their application to the Bible as 

well as to other books. Concluding remarks, 141 

2 



CONTENTS. 



LECTURE XII. 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

Page 

Christ a divine person. This proposition explained, and the proper divinity of Christ proved. 
Divine attributes ascribed to him. Divine names and epithets applied to him. He per- 
formed divine works. He received divine worship. He claimed divine honors. Christ 
also a human person. The mystery of the incarnation. Christ'the constituted Mediator 
between God and man. Import of the phrase, Son of God. Importance of the whole" 
doctrine of Christ, 153 



LECTURE XIII. 



THE PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



The doctrine explained. Proofs of personal distinctions in the Godhead. One of these per- 
eons is the Holy Spirit. Objections to the personality of the Spirit. Proof of the 
divinity of the Holy Spirit. Great importance of the doctrine, 164 



LECTURE XIV. 



THE TRINITY. 



The doctrine explained. The divine unity asserted. A plurality of persons in the one God. 
The persons of the Godhead no more nor less than three. Traces of a Trinity among the 
heathen. Held by the early Christian fathers. Objections considered. Importance of 
the doctrine, « 172 



LECTURE XT. 

THE DECREES OR PURPOSES OF GOD. 



The doctrine defined. Both reasonable and scriptural. Important distinctions in fegafd to 
it. Foreknowledge based upon it. Proofs of the universality of God's purposes. Proofs 
of their eternity. Objections considered. Difliculties in rejecting the doctrine. Not 
• exclusively a doctrine of revelation, . « * * « • t * < , « . 



CONTENTS. XI 



LECTURE XVI. 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 

Page 
These doctrines included in that of God's universal purposes. Both of them scriptural. 
Neither of them conditioned on foreseen moral character, but both include character. 
Not arbitrary decrees, but based on good and sufficient reasons, known only to God. 
Reprobation not the precise counterpart of election. Objections considered, . . . 194 



LECTURE XVII. 



THE PURPOSES OF GOD, AS SEEN IN HIS WORKS. 

The -works of God disclose his purposes. They are the best means of investigating his pur- 
poses. Whatever God does in time he purposed to do in eternity. Whatever is proper 
for him to do in time, was proper for him to purpose in eternity. Objections obviated 
in this way. Those who approve of God's dispensations, will approve of his pur- 
poses, 203 



LECTURE XVIII. 

ABUSES AND USES OF THE DOCTRINE OF GOD'S PURPOSES. 



Abuses of this doctrine, under several particulars. Still, the doctrine has important uses, 
and should be received and investigated. Its uses, under several particulars, pointed 
out 211 



LECTURE XIX. 

THE WORKS OF GOD.— CREATION. — THE . ANGELS. 

Creation denned. The angels first created. The angels are spirits, — of different orders,— 
older than men, and superior to them. They were once on probation, when a part of 
them fell. Employments of angels, the holy and the fallen. Proof of the existence of 
fallen angels. They are bound, with us, to the final judgment, . . . . .221 



Xn CONTENTS. 



LECTURE XX. 

« 

CREATION OF THIS WORLD. 

Page 
A distinction between the original creation, and the six days' work. The former took 
place at a period vastly remote ; the latter about six thousand years ago. A commen- 
tary on the first chapter of Genesis. The days here spoken of supposed to be literal 
days, and not indefinitely long periods. The work of creation honorable to the Supreme 
Being, 235 



LECTURE XXI. 



THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD. 

The work of providence consists in '* preserving and governing." The work of preserving 
considered. Governing includes the disposal of all things, and also moral govern- 
ment. The providence of God particular and universal, extending to the moral world, 
as well as to the natural. God works by means, and according to established laws. 
Objections considered. The doctrine one of great importance, theologically and 
practically, 245 



LECTURE XXII. 



THE DESIGN OR END OF GOD IN HIS WORKS. 

The design of God in his works is to glorify himself in the highest possible degree, and thus 
secure the highest good of the universe, as a whole. God's, essential glory and his 
declarative glory. The former stands connected with his works; the latter is promoted 
by them. The end here proposed is a most worthy one, in the promotion of which God 
is supremely glorious and happy, . . . * • • . . .256 



LECTURE XXIII. 

GOD THE SUPREME DISPOSER AND A MORAL GOVERNOR. 

God assumes these different offices the better to unfold himself to his creatures, and display 
his glory. The two offices described. The language appropriate to each very different. 
The atonement of Christ stands connected with moral government. The distinction here 
illustrated one of great importance, theologically and practically, 264 



CONTENTS. XIII 



LECTURE XXIV. 



THE HUMAN MIND. 

Page 

The subjects of mind and religion intimately connected. The mind considered under four 
departments, — the sensational, the intellectual, the emotional, and the voluntary. 
The sensational and intellectual departments described. Our ideas, external and in- 
ternal, considered. Judgment and reason explained. The sensibilities classified. 
The subject of conscience examined. The sensibilities important because of their in- 
fluence as motives, and because of their connection with religious experience and 
character, • 276 



LECTURE XXV. 



THE WILL. 



The will a distinct and most important faculty. Its exercises classified. The will, like 
all our other faculties, has its laws. The laws of the will stated and illustrated. The 
influence of motives, external and internal. The power of contrary choice con- 
sidered, 286 



LECTURE XXVI. 



THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 

The question stated. Neither natural depravity, nor God's purposes and foreknowledge, 
nor his providential control over the hearts of men, inconsistent with moral freedom. 
The self-originating power of the will considered and refuted. Freedom of will be- 
longs to the very nature of the will, and can never be separated from it. Importance of 
the subject, 



LECTURE XXVII. 



NATURAL AND MORAL ABILITY, NECESSITY, ETC. 

The distinction between natural and moral ability explained and illustrated. Applies to 
internal exercises, as well as to overt actions. Objections considered, and inquiries 
answered. The distinction between natural and moral necessity. Importance of these 
distinctions, 307 



XIY CONTENTS. 

LECTURE XXVIII. 

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. 

Page 

Different theories of right and wrong considered. That of the tendencies of action. That of 
the mere will of God. That of the constitution of the human mind. The distinction be- 
tween right and wrong immutable and eternal, founded in the nature and relations of 
things, — ultimately in the very nature of God. The law of God the grand exponent of 
right, but not the ground of it. The office of conscience is to discover the right. When 
it is right to follow the dictates of conscience, 317 

LECTURE XXIX. 

NATURE OF HOLINESS AND OF SIN. 

Both holiness and sin in their natures active. Tlus proposition explained and proved, and 
objections answered. Importance of this view of the subject. All holiness resolvable 
into disinterested and impartial love; all sin into selfishness. This proposition explained 
and established, 330 

LECTURE XXX. 



INTRODUCTION OF SIN. 

Ancient theories respecting it. Sin did not enter the universe because God was not able to 
prevent it. This proposition established. Sin permitted to enter the universe because 
God saw that its existence could be overruled for an overbalancing amount of good. 
Objections answered. Sin not a means of the greatest good. Concluding re- 
marks, 340 



LECTURE XXXI. 



MAN BEFORE THE FALL. 

Man before the fall had the same faculties as now, though not in the same state. He had all 
the knowledge needful in his circumstances. He was subject to the divine law and 
government. He was perfectly holy. He was on a probation of law or works. The 
death threatened in case of transgression 353 



CONTENTS. XV 



LECTURE XXXII. 



THE TEMPTATION AND FALL OF MAN. 

Page 
What was the serpent? His speaking not necessarily a miracle. The temptation and 
fall explained. Consequence ofthe fall. The curses explained. Man placed on a new 
probation 360 



LECTURE XXXIII. 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL, DEPRAVITY, ETC. 



The depravity of man universal. This proposition proved from Scripture, observation, 
history and experience. The depravity of man total. This proposition explained, and 
proved from the Bible, from observation, and from the experience of all good men. Im- 
portance of the doctrine, . 



LECTURE XXXIV. 



NATURAL DEPRAVITY. 



A scriptural doctrine. A consequence of Adam's first sin. Different theories of natural de- 
pravity considered. Natural depravity the result of a general law,— the great law of 
likeness. Difficulties obviated, 382 



LECTURE XXXV. 



THE CHARACTER OF INFANTS. 



Infants are sinners. This proposition explained and proved. How are they sinners? Not 
that they sinned in a previous state of existence. Not that they have a sinful nature, as 
distinct from sinful, selfish affections. But that they have such affections, — the begin- 
nings, the germs of actual sin, from the first. Difficulties removed. Importance of this 
view of the subject, 391 



XVI CONTENTS. 

LECTURE XXXVI. 

THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. ITS NECESSITY. 

Page 
The word atonement explained. Not the same as redemption. Its necessity proved from 
Scripture, and from common life. An atonement necessary, in order that 6inners may 
come to repentance. Also necessary, to honor the law of God, vindicate his authority, 
and satisfy his justice 405 

LECTURE XXXVn. 



THE ATONEMENT. — ITS NATURE AND EFFICACY. 

The atonement of Christ consisted, not in his personal obedience or holiness, hut in his 
sufferings and death. This view explained and proved. Objections answered. The 
death of Christ availed to make an atonement, not by his paying our debt to justice, or 
suffering for us the proper penalty of the law, but by his suffering a governmental equiva- 
lent for the penalty. Objections answered. This the view taken by the most respectable 
theologians, 414 



LECTURE XXXVHI. 

THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. — COLLATERAL TOPICS. 

The atonement universal, as to its sufficiency. It has been accepted of the Father. The 
sufferings of Christ confined to his human nature ; yet vastly more intense thau unassisted 
human nature could have sustained. They were, in the circumstances, an ample substi- 
tute, a full equivalent, for the penalty of the law. Objections answered. Importance of 
the doctrine, 425 



LECTURE XXXIX. 

THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. 

Christ intercedes in heaven, by appearing there with his finished atonement; by literally 
praying for his people ; by presenting their prayers to God, and making them acceptable ; 
by answering all the charges brought against them. Christ intercedes, not only for his 
people, and for his church, but in some sense for all men. The blessing flowing from his 
intercessions innumerable and eternal, 434 



CONTENTS. XVII 

LECTURE XL. 

THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

Page 
The word covenant defined. The covenant of grace described. Distinguished from the 
covenant of redemption. Conditions and promises of the covenant of grace. Our church 
covenants contain the covenant of grace, but are not the covenant itself, . . . 445 

LECTURE XLI. 



REGENERATION. 

The necessity of regeneration. Regeneration consists, not in baptism ; nor in a change of 
profession; nor in a gradual reformation; nor in the bestowment of any new faculties; 
but in a yielding, for the first time, of the heart, the affections, unto God. Proved 
to be an active change. No essential difference between the regeneration of asinner 
and his conversion. Importance of the view here taken. Truth the motive cause of 
regeneration; the Holy Spirit tbe efficient cause; the subject of it the active cause or 
agent, 452 



LECTURE XLII. 



REGENERATION — CONCLUDED. 



Collateral inquiries. How the Holy Spirit can be the efficient cause of regeneration, and yet 
the subject of it be active? The influence of the Spirit in regeneration not mediate only, 
but direct. How regeneration differs from sanctification. How the backslidden believer 
differs from the impenitent sinner. Evidences of regeneration, . . .' . .464 



LECTURE XLIII. 



REPENTANCE. 

Repentance not the same as doing penance; nor an outward reformation ; but an internal, 
spiritual affection. It includes conviction of sin ; godly sorrow for siu; self-abhorrence 
on account of it; and a voluntary turning from it. True and false repentance dis- 
tinguished. Why repentance is necessary in order to forgiveness. Not an arbitrary con- 
dition of the covenant of grace, but one of inherent necessity. The question whether 
repentance precedes or follows regeneration considered, 471 

3 



XVIII CONTENTS. 



LECTURE XLIY. 



FAITH IN CHRIST. 

Page 
True faith in Christ includes an intellectual assent to the whole doctrine of Christ; a love for 
this doctrine; a cordial committing of the lost soul to Christ; and a determination to obey 
and follow him. True faith distinguished from every form of false faith. Faith not an 
arbitrary condition of salvation, hut one of inherent and indispensable necessity. How 
faith in Christ differs from faith in Cod, 478 






LECTURE XLV. 



JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 



Legal justification described. This impossible to the sinner. Evangelical justification 
described. The same as forgiveness, using the word forgiveness in the largest sense. 
The atonement the sole ground of the sinner's justification. Faith in Christ the great con- 
dition of it. Justification not complete in this life. Full and final justification conditioned 
on perseverance ; yet no uncertainty as to the issue. This doctrine often disputed. A doc- 
trine of vital importance 484 






LECTURE XLVI. 



PERSE YERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 



Perseverance explained. The doctrine proved. Objections answered. Importance of the ■ 
doctrine 491 



LECTURE XLVIT. 



CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 



The doctrine stated and explained. The question one of mere fact. Arguments in favor of 
perfection in this life examined. Arguments againet the doctrine of perfection. Pre- 
tences to perfection of dangerous influence* . 



CONTEXTS , XTX 



LECTURE XLYHL 



MEANS OF GRACE. 

Page 
Means of grace described. Xo inherent efficacy in means, bnt a constituted tendency to move 
and sanctify the souL Men never sanctified without means. How persons are to use 
means for their own good, and for the good of others. How sinners should he directed. 
This subject formerly much disputed in Xew England, 513 



LECTURE XLIX. 



PRAYER. 



A definition of prayer, and of acceptable prayer. The pyayer of faith. An error concerning 
it refuted. The efficacy of prayer explained. Infidel objections to prayer removed. 
Inquiries answered. TThat the proper object or design of prayer, 520 



LECTURE L. 



DEATH. 



Death not an eternal sleep. Xot a temporary sleep of the souL The soul not material. 
Death the separation of soul and body. Proof that death termi n ates the probation of 
man. Sin the procuring cause of death. Its final causes, 530 



LECTURE LI. 



IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES OF DEATH. 



Consequences to the body, — and to the soul. The soul, while separate from the body, retains 
a substantial, conscious, active existence. The question of an intermediate place. Argu- 
ments in favor of it considered. The existence of such a place disproved. The soul 
passes through a private, personal judgment at death. Spirits recognize each other in 
the future world. The nature of their enjoyments and sufferings, 5-41 



XX CONTENTS, 



LECTURE LIL 



THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

Page 
The doctrine explained, and popular objections removed. The resurrection of the body proved 
from Scripture. The wicked raised, as well as the righteous. The resurrection to occur 
on the morning of the last day. Interpretation of Rev. xx. 4-6. This doctrine denied by 
the Gmostics, and by some religionists at this day 555 



LECTURE LIIL 



THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 



The subject explained. The fact of a general judgment proved. When the judgment will 
take place. Who is to be the judge. Who to be judged. For what to be judged. 
Duration of the judgment. Object of the judgment, or ends to be answered by it. The 
issues of the judgment, 567 



LECTURE LIY. 



FINAL STATE OF THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE WICKED. 



Final state of the righteous. Heaven a place. Nature of heavenly enjoyments. Final state 
of the wicked. Nature of their sufferings. They will be endless. Arguments in proof 
of this proposition, and against the final restoration of the wicked 574 



LECTURE LV. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 



Objections from the wisdom, power, and goodness of God. From the justice of God. 
From various passages of Scripture. The case of the heathen considered. History of 
Universalism, v . . 583 



CONTENTS. XXI 



LECTURE LVI. 



DIFFERENT FORMS OF UNIVERSALIS!!. 

Page 
The form advocated by Relly and others. The sins of men punished, hut the sinner saved. 
The necessarian form. The restoration form. The form advocated by Mr. Hosea 
Ballou fully considered. The infidel form. All these should be r well understood at this 
day, 598 



LECTURE LVII. 



ANNIHILATION. 



Different theories of annihilation. Arguments in favor of annihilation considered and re- 
futed. Argument against it urged. Evil consequences of the doctrine, . . . .610 



LECTURE LVIII. 



THE SABBATH. 



The Sabbath was instituted in Paradise. Arguments to show that the law of the Sabbath is 
of universal and perpetual obligation. The Sabbath to be observed, under the gospel, on 
the first day of the week. Objections answered. How and why the Sabbath should be 
observed, 



LECTURE LIX. 



THE CHURCH. 



Use of the word church in the Scriptures. The church of God the same, under the patri- 
archal, the Jewish, and Christian dispensations. The Apostolic churches voluntary 
associations, composed of professed believers in Christ, and based upon the holy Scrip- 
tures. The question of written creeds and covenants. The primitive churches were 
independent bodies, choosing their own officers, holding and managing their own prop- 
erty, and regulating all their appropriate concerns. The privileges of church-member- 
ship, 640 



XXII CONTENTS. 



LECTURE LX. 



THE OFFICERS OF A CHURCH. 



The arguments in favor of bishops examined and refuted. Only two orders of officers in a 
church, pastors and deacons. No lay elders in the primitive churches. Deacons not, by 
their office, preachers. Ordination. This to be performed by ministers, .... 651 



LECTURE LXI. 



CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 



Church discipline defined. The proper subjects of it offending members. The power of 
discipline in the church. The ends to be attained by discipline. Interpretation of Matt, 
xviii. 15-17. The powers and rights of ecclesiastical councils. How excommunicants are 
to be regarded. Church discipline throughout a work of love, 663 



LECTURE LXIL 



THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS. 



Signification of the word sacrament, and its introduction among Christians. Essential marks 
of a Christian sacrament. Five of the Romish sacraments without these marks. Only 
two sacraments remaining, — Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The saving efficacy of the 
sacraments conditioned upon faith. Benefits of the sacraments, .» 



LECTURE LXIII. 



BAPTISM. 



Baptism with water an ancient religious rite. Jewish proselyte baptism. The baptism of 
John a preparatory and not a Christian ordinance. Baptism both a sign and a seal. Im- 
mersion not essential to valid baptism. Baptism not to be repeated. The question of 
Romish, and Unitarian, and Universalist baptisms. Importance of liberality and candor 
among Christians in regard to this subject, i 



c£:ntents. xxiii 



LECTURE LXIY. 



SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 

Page 
Adult persons who give evidence of piety are proper subjects. So also are children under the 
care and government of church-members. Arguments in support of this proposition. 
Objections answered. The right of infants to baptism lies in the very constitution of the 
church, and should be studied and settled there, 691 



LECTURE LXY. 



IMPORT, DESIGN, AND USES OP INFANT BAPTISM. 



Infant baptism both a sign and a seal. The truths set forth by it as a sign. As a seal it rati- 
fies a covenant between G-od and the parent respecting the child. "What this covenant is. 
Baptized children pot as yet church-members, but belong to the church by promise. 
Inferences and remarks. Infant baptism of good practical influence, 701 



LECTURE LXVI. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 



Close communion denned. Arguments against it. How it may be done away. Objections 
considered, and inquiries answered, 712 



LECTURE LXVH. 



THE LORD S SUPPER. 



The Lord's Supper an institution of Christ, to be perpetuated in his church. Early perver- 
Bion of the supper. Objections to consubstantiation and transubstantiation. The Lord's 
Supper both a sign and a seal. What it denotes as a sign. Its sealing efficacy. Mode of 
'administering the ordinance. Designed only for Christians, 



XXIV CONTENTS. 



LECTURE LXVI1I. 



POPERY AS A FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 

Page 
The theory of Popish authority stated. No supremacy ever conferred upon Peter hy Christ, 
or acknowledged by the other apostles, or claimed hy himself. Peter was never bishop of 
Rome. Or if he had been, he conferred no authority on his successors. The whole 
fabric a usurpation, 742 



LECTURE LXIX. 



PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH. ON EARTH. 



The church is yet to prevail over all the earth. The period of its universal prevalence com- 
monly called the Millennium. The Millennium not to be introduced by the speedy coming 
of Christ to destroy this world. Neither by his speedy coming to reign, with his glorified 
saints, in this world. Both these theories examined and refuted, 755 



LECTURE LXX. 



PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH ON EARTH — CONCLUDED. 



The Millennium not to be introduced by miracles ; or by the ministry of angels. Much will 
be done by providential arrangements. The chief instrumentality will be the faithful 
preaching of God's truth, and the faithful efforts of his people, accompanied by the 
power of the Holy Ghost. The Millennium to be pi-eceded by the destruction of God's 
incorrigible enemies. The introduction of this glorious day not distant. Duration 
of the Millennium. State of the world during that period. Moral purposes to be 
answered by it, 765 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



LECTURE I. 

EXISTENCE OF GOD. 

By the existence of God, I mean & personal existence ; — that 
he is a literal Being, possessed of personal attributes and pow- 
ers, the adequate and sufficient cause of all other beings and 
things. Pantheists have much to say of God, and profess to be- 
lieve in him. But the God in whom they believe has no distinct 
personal existence. He is but a name for the various powers, 
processes, and laws of nature. He is & personification, and not 
a person ; a figure of speech, and not a reality. In opposition 
to all such theories and speculations, we believe in the existence 
of a personal God, and shall endeavor to prove his existence 
from the light of nature and reason. 

Some have doubted as to the importance of this kind of proof. 
"The Scriptures," they say, "affirm the divine existence, and 
that is enough. If persons will not believe the Bible, they cer- 
tainly will not be convinced by the mere deductions of reason." 
But let such persons remember that the existence of God is 
assumed in the divine authority of Scripture. What is it that 
gives to the declarations of Scripture that high and sacred au- 
thority that we ascribe to them? Is it not this, that they are 
the icord of God? But for this assumed fact, they would have 
no more authority than any other book. But if the Scriptures 
are the word of God, then there must be a God, whose word 
they are. The divine existence is manifestly assumed here. 
Hence, to rest the divine existence on the mere authority of 
Scripture is absurd. It is to reason in a circle. If the exist- 
ence of God cannot be proved in some other way than this, 
obviously, it cannot be proved at all. 

4 



26 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Besides, we not unfrequently have occasion to deal with per- 
sons who do not admit the divine authority of Scripture ; and 
we should be able, if possible, to convince them, on other 
grounds, that there is a God. 

The attempt has often been made to prove the divine exist- 
ence by an a priori course of reasoning ; that is, by reasoning 
from antecedent to consequent, or from cause to effect. But 
the very conditions of the case would, seem to preclude this 
kind of reasoning. Has God any antecedents ? Is he not lit- 
erally before all things ? And, being himself the first cause of 
all, in what sense can he be regarded as an effect? How, then, 
shall an a priori argument be constructed to prove the exist- 
ence of the Supreme Being? Accordingly, we find that such 
arguments are, in the general, mystical, recondite, rather puz- 
zling than convincing, and not at all adapted for popular 
impression and use. 

Dr. Samuel Clark's celebrated argument, a priori, to prove 
the divine existence, is to this effect : Immensity and eternity 
are necessary ideas, — ideas of which we can never rid our- 
selves. But, as these are not substances, but qualities, there 
must be something infinite and eternal to which they belong. 
The supposition of an infinite and eternal nothing is absurd. 
Now, I agree with Dr. Qlark, that an infinite and eternal noth- 
ing involves an absurdity. And if we knew enough about the 
matter to fix precisely upon this impossibility, define it, and 
show what it is, perhaps we might draw out from it an argu- 
ment of an a priori character to prove that something infinite 
must have existed from eternity. But whether this something, 
if it existed, could be shown to be God, and whether we know 
enough of the subject at present to construct such an argument, 
may well be doubted. 

Anselm and Descartes inferred the existence of God from the 
fact that they had the idea of an absolutely perfect being, — a 
being existing from necessity, and without a cause. In other 
words, they could conceive of the existence of such a being, and 
could not conceive of his non-existence. They concluded, 
therefore, that he exists. 1 But the force of this argument has 

1 See Anselm's Proslogian, chaps, ii. and iv. 



EXISTENCE OF GOD. 27 

been generally denied ; and it is doubtful whether any one was 
ever convinced by it. It was better adapted to the genius of 
schoolmen than to the conceptions of ordinary life. 

Some tell us that the idea of God is implanted in our very 
nature, is born with us, and never can be wholly eradicated. 
But this statement is inadmissible. The ideas which we enter- 
tain of God are not innate, but acquired. Nor is it difficult to 
understand how we acquire them. The elements of them are 
furnished in our own minds. Man was made in the image of 
God. Much importance is to be attached to this representation 
of Holy Writ. As we are spirits, so God is a spirit. As we pos- 
sess intelligence, wisdom, and power, so God possesses the same 
attributes, in an infinite degree. Were it not that we were made 
in the image of God, we might never be able to form any idea 
of him. But as it is, we have only to carry out the ideas which 
we have of ourselves, of our substance and attributes, to infini- 
tude, to perfection; and we have an idea of the Supreme Being, 
— at least, we have the essential lineaments of that great idea. 

For evidence of the divine existence, some persons profess to 
rely on their own internal consciousness. They are as conscious 
of God's existence as they are of their own. Some profess to 
be even more conscious of the former than of the latter. Per- 
sons who talk in this manner are little better than pantheists. 
They believe that' God is literally in them; that they are par- 
takers of his essence ; that they are part and particle of God. 
Now, if this were true, they might be supposed, perhaps, to 
have some consciousness of the fact, and so might be conscious 
of the divine existence. But is this true? If it is true of one 
man, it is true of all men ; and then why do not all possess the 
same consciousness ? And if all men arrive at a knowledge of 
God in this way, then why are so many ignorant of him ? And 
why are so inany absurd and contradictory ideas entertained 
respecting him ? 

I infer the divine existence from my own ; and that, too, by 
a very short argument, — so short that I may be hardly con- 
scious of the process. Still, the knowledge which I have of 
the Supreme Being, I hold to be from reason, and not from con- 



28 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

sciousness. I am not directly conscious of the divine existence, 
nor do I believe that such a consciousness is possible. 

The reasoning of the inspired writers on the subject before 
us, so far as we have any specimens of it, is all a posteriori, or 
from effect to cause. " The heavens declare the glory of God, 
and the* firmament sheweth his handy work. Day unto day 
uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge" 
(Ps. xix. 1, 2). "The invisible things of him, from the 
creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood from 
the things that are made" (Eom. i. 20). "Every house is 
builded by some man, but he that built all things is God " 
(Heb. iii. 4). 

In my attempts to prove the divine existence, I shall follow 
the example of the sacred writers in this respect, and argue 
from effect to cause. I shall endeavor to prove the existence 
of the invisible God from the things which are made, or 
from his works. 

But this argument, like every other, rests on some necessary 
assumptions. We assume, in the first place, our own exist- 
ence, and the existence of beings and things around us, and 
within us, according to the testimony of our senses and our con- 
sciousness ; because, if we do not ourselves exist, we certainly 
cannot reason on this subject or on any other. We cannot 
believe or disbelieve, deny, or so much as doubt, anything. 
And if objects within us and around us do not exist, according 
to the testimony of the senses and of consciousness, then we 
have naught on which to found an argument, and all our 
reasonings must be vain. 

We assume, in the second place, that every effect must have 
a cause, and a sufficient cause. N The necessary connection 
between cause and effect is one of those axioms, or primary 
truths, which can never be made any clearer by argument. 
We intuitively perceive that it must be so; and without sup- 
posing it, no process of reasoning, at least iu the direction in 
which we are now to reason, can be sustained. With these 
necessary assumptions, I proceed to adduce arguments in proof 
of the divine existence. And — 

1 . I infer the existence of God from the existence, of matter, 



EXISTENCE OF GOD. 29 

even in its simple, elementary state. Matter, in this state, must 
either have had a beginning, — and if a beginning, a cause, a 
creator, — or it must have existed from all eternity. Between 
these two suppositions there is no alternative. The one or the 
other must be true. Are we, then, to suppose elementary 
matter to be eternal ? Such was the opinion of all the ancient 
heathen philosophers. Those of them who believed in a God 
supposed him not to have given existence to matter, but merely 
to have organized, shaped and controlled it ; while the atheistic 
philosophers held matter to be eternal, and believed in no God 
besides. Some Christians have 'been inclined to concede the 
eternity of matter, or have held that the contrary could not be 
proved. The question, then, is one of vital importance in this 
argument, and requires an extended and careful consideration : 
Has matter, even in its elements, existed from eternity? The 
Scriptures decide this question in the negative ; but we are not 
now to depend on them for proof. What is the testimony of 
nature and reason on the subject? 

In answer to this question I remark, in the first place, that 
if matter is eternal then it possesses some of the essential 
attributes of God, and must be regarded as in some sense 
divine. If matter is eternal, without beginning and without 
cause, then- it must be self-existent and independent. It exists 
from an inherent and eternal necessity. But self-existence, 
necessary existence, independence and eternity, are most essen- 
tially divine attributes. They belong only to God. 

Nor are these the only divine attributes to be , ascribed to 
matter, on supposition of its eternal and necessary existence. 
If it exist from necessity, it would seem that it must be omni- 
present. A necessary existence, like a necessary truth, is not 
limited by time or space. As a necessary truth is true every- 
where, so a necessary existence must exist everywhere. There 
is the same necessity for it in one place as in another. On the 
supposition before us, therefore, matter ought to be universally 
diffused and extended. It should occupy every interstice of 
space, and be literally omnipresent. 

It should also be immutable. Every change is an effect, and 
implies a cause. But, according to the supposition, matter is 



30 " CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

without cause. Hence, it must be without change ; or, in other 
words, immutable. Besides, since that inherent necessity 
which, if matter be eternal, is the ground of its existence, is 
immutable, it follows that matter itself must be immutable. 

In short, if matter is eternal, then it possesses, as I said, 
some of the essential attributes of God, and may well claim to 
be divine. Let us, then, examine and see whether matter 
actually possesses these divine attributes. Does it give any 
sign of possessing them? Does it afford any evidence? Or 
are not all the signs and evidences the other way? Take, for 
example, the attribute of independence, — strict, absolute inde- 
pendence, — which matter must certainly possess, on supposi- 
tion that it is eternal. Is it independent? Does it seem to 
be? So far from this, every material thing with which we are 
acquainted is characterized by the opposite attribute of depend- 
ence. Everywhere we see one thing resting upon another, 
hanging upon another, supported by another ; or, in other 
words, dependent, I rest upon my chair, and my chair upon 
the floor, and the floor upon the solid earth. But the earth 
also must be supported. That can no more rest upon nothing, 
or support itself, than a stone can. 

Again : is matter omnipresent, as it would seem it must be, 
on supposition of its necessary and eternal existence? Is it 
universally diffused? Does it literally fill every interstice of 
space? Are we and all other creatures, and every existing 
thing, so pervaded, surrounded, wedged in, choked up with cir- 
cumambient matter, that not a vacant interstice is left? Who 
believes it ? Who does not feel assured that this is not the case ? 

We have seen, again, that if matter is eternal, it ought to 
be immutable. Is it so? On the contrary, is it not passing 
. through a continual flow of changes, — the most fluctuating and 
changeable of all things ? 

But perhaps it will be said that, though the forms of matter 
change, its elements remain unchanged and immutable. But 
if this be so, how are we to account for the changes in its out- 
ward forms and manifestations ? How can it put on such varied 
appearances, and exhibit so many different properties, without 



EXISTENCE OF GOD. 31 

any change as to the nature, shape, relations, and positions, of 
the elementary parts ? 

We thus see that some of the essential properties of matter — 
as its dependence, its mutability, and its limited, finite exist- 
ence — forbid the supposition of its eternity. Other qualities 
or modifications of it do the same. Thus, if matter exists from 
an inherent and uniform necessity, — as it must do if it has 
existed from eternity, — then it ought to exist in a uniform 
state; as, for example, either of motion or rest. And yet we 
know that it does not. Some portions of matter are in very 
rapid motion ; others move more slowly ; others are at rest : 
while the same portions are frequently passing from one of 
these states to the other. 

The contingency of matter, too, as a thing which may be, or 
may not be, is quite inconsistent, with a notion of its eternity. 
The things which we behold around us, manifestly, are not 
necessary existences. They are such as may not have been, or 
may not have been in their present positions and relations. The 
supposition that they never had been, or that they had existed 
at some other time or place, or that something else had come 
in their places, would involve, so far as we can see, no contra- 
diction or absurdity. But, if material existences are not 
necessary existences, then they are not eternal existences, and 
the eternity of matter is refuted. 

It may be thought, perhaps, that my reasonings, thus far, 
against the eternity of matter, are too metaphysical to be con- 
vincing. We want something of a more tangible, practical 
character. Let us look, then, at the subject in a historical 
point of view. 

Geology teaches us that this earth has not always been what 
it now is ; that it has passed through a great variety of changes, 
ever advancing from the less to the more perfect. In the deep 
foundations of the globe we read the history of these changes, 
written, as it were, "with an iron pen and lead in the rock for- 
ever." This history carries us back to a period when, instead 
of the present highly organized forms of matter, there is not the 
least trace of any material organization whatever. " Along the 
ever rushing stream of time we are conducted backward and 



32 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

backward, till we reach a spot where all forms of organized 
existence disappear, and we stand on termination rock." 
Beyond, so far as organized appearances are concerned, all is 
darkness. We can neither see nor go any farther. But here, 
where the lights of nistory leave us, the light of reason comes 
in to our aid. The conclusion forces itself upon us, — it is 
proclaimed, as it were, with the sound of many waters, — that 
this unorganized matter has not been here always. This retro- 
grade course of things, from the more to the less perfect, does 
not stop here. It runs us back to a time when there were no 
material existences ; when the world we inhabit had a literal 
beginning ; when what is now compounded in matter was ele- 
mental, and when its very ingredients and elements were not. 

There is yet another argument to the same point, addressed, 
not so much to atheists, who admit no God, as to theists, who 
believe in the existence and providence of God, and yet insist 
on the eternity of matter. If matter is eternal, God can 
exercise no effectual and rightful providence over it ; and that 
for several reasons. In the first place, matter being, by the 
supposition, entirely without God, and independent of him, 
how can he know enough about it to exercise a providence over 
it ? God knows himself, and all his works ; but matter, on 
this supposition, is not his work. He has had nothing to do 
with it ; and how can he know how to organize, to mingle, to 
fashion, and control it? 

Besides, if matter is eternal, how can we be sure that God 
has power enough to exercise a providence over it? He has 
power over all the work of his hands ; but matter, on the 
supposition, is not the work of his hands. He has power to do 
all things possible ; but it may not be possible for him to' 
exercise an effective control over that which is entirely inde- 
pendent of himself. 

But even this is not the worst of it. If matter is eternal, 
like God, and independent of him, then he has no right to take 
it, and make a world of it, and exercise a government over that 
world. He has a right to do what he will with his own ; but 
matter, by the supposition, is not his own. He did not create 
it ; he has no just claim to it ; he had no right to touch it, or 






EXISTENCE OF GOD. 33 

to do anything with it, unless it be the right of the stronger 
over the weaker. We see, then, that the doctrine of provi- 
dence, if it have any just foundation, necessarily involves that 
of an original creation. It is a complete refutation of the 
eternity of matter. 

I have dwelt the longer on this question of the eternity of 
matter, on account not only of its intricacy, but its importance. 
All the old atheists and pantheists held firmly to the doctrine 
of the eternity of matter. It has been held by some who were 
not atheists or pantheists. But it has no foundation in reason 
or fact. The history of material forms, as well as their prop- 
erties, forbid it. The word and the providence of God forbid 
it. All these sources of evidence proclaim that matter must 
have had a beginning ; and, if a beginning, then an adequate 
cause ; a creator, which is God. 

Having settled, as I conceive, this fundamental question, and 
closed my first argument for the existence of God, the remain- 
ing arguments may be disposed of in fewer words. I observe, 
therefore : 

2. The existence of God may be proved from the existing 
mixtures and compounds of matter. We do. not often see mat- 
ter in its elements. Perhaps we never do. Material objects 
around us are all of them compounds. And some of them 
most wonderful compounds. The air we breathe, for example, 
is so compounded that if the ingredients entering into it were 
but slightly changed, instead of sustaining and nourishing life, 
it would become deadly. And the same may be said of the 
water that gushes from our fountains, and is dropped upon us 
from th*e skies. Now, if we were to attribute to elementary 
matter an eternal existence (which we cannot do), still, how 
are we to account for these wonderful compounds ? Who com- 
pounded them ? Who combined the elementary ingredients in 
so many and such admirable forms, and so wisely adapted them 
to the necessities of the animal and vegetable kingdoms ? Do 
we not here see manifest indications of the power, the wisdom, 
and the goodness of God ? 

3. The existence of God may be still more conclusively 
argued from the existing organizations- of matter. The world 

5 



34 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

around us abounds in exhibitions of this nature, — organized 
matter, — of matter most curiously and wonderfully organized. 
Look through the vegetable kingdom, and note the organiza- 
tion of plants and trees, of fruits and flowers and shrubs. 
Look, again, through the animal kingdom, from the most 
minute of creatures to the most magnificent, and study the 
organizations which are there exhibited. Contemplate the 
structure of the human body, or of any particular part of it ; 
as the eye, the ear, the hand, the foot. This wonderful struct- 
ure certainly had a beginning, and must have had an adequate 
cause. Who caused it? Who constructed it? If, from the 
structure of a knife, a chair, a table, a watch, we infer that 
each of these articles must have had a maker, much more may 
we infer from the wonderful structure of the human frame, and 
from the various forms of organized material existence with 
which the world around us is filled, that all these things must 
have had a Maker, who is God. 

4. The existence of God may be proved conclusively from 
the existence of the human mind. I assume here that there is 
a valid distinction between matter and mind. We are con- 
scious of possessing a something within us which exhibits none 
of the properties of matter, but other properties vastly supe- 
rior; a something which thinks, feels, reasons, chooses and 
acts. This something we call mind. Our minds, we know, 
are finite and dependent. Hence, they cannot be self-existent 
or eternal. They must have had a beginning ; and we know 
(so far as we know anything about it) that they have been in 
existence but a little while. How did they originate ? Who 
is their author? They certainly are not the productions of 
matter ; for how could matter give what it does not possess ? 
They are not the work of any creature of which we have 
knowledge, or of which we can conceive. And if it be said 
that they came into existence in accordance with some estab- 
lished law, the question arises, Who established this law? And 
who is the proper author of the human mind? To these ques- 
tions we shall search in vain for an answer, till we come to the 

great Originating Mind, — the great First Cause of all. 

5. The existence of God may be proved from the necessity 



EXISTENCE OF GOD. 35 

which there is, not only of an originating power in the universe, 
but of a sustaining and moving power. It was this argument 
which established most of the ancient theists in their belief of a 
God. They did not feel the need of an originating power, be- 
lieving, as they did, in the eternal existence of matter. But 
who sustains the mighty mass ? Who first moved it, and fash- 
ioned it? Whose power is exerted to keep it in motion, 
according to established laws ? These are the questions which 
stirred the minds of Anaxagoras, of Socrates, of Plato, of 
Aristotle, and led them, in the midst of surrounding atheism, 
to assert the existence of a Supreme Disposer. 

I have said that there is need in the. universe of a sustaining 
power. Matter, in all places and in all the forms which it 
assumes, is characterized by the same attribute of dependence. 
One thing hangs upon another, and that on another ; and the 
last of the series, like all the rest, must depend upon something 
out of itself. And the created mind is as dependent as matter. 
The power of thought, of feeling, and of action, may be sus- 
pended. Not only without our concurrence, but in spite of our 
resistance, all the powers of the mind may become deranged. 
In respect both to body and soul, we find ourselves dependent 
on a power without ourselves and above ourselves, — a power 
whom we can neither resist nor control. 

And there is a necessity in the universe of not only a sus- 
taining, but a moving power. Matter is essentially inert, and 
wholly incapable of moving itself. Who moves it? Who 
moves the blood in our veins ? Who moves the great planets 
on their axes and in their orbits ? And if it be^ said that these 
regular movements proceed on the ground of some established 
law, I ask, as before, Who 'established the law? And what 
account shall be given of the numberless irregular movements 
which we witness in the worhj around us, — those which are 
not subjected to general law ? It irmst be obvious to every re- 
flecting person that there is needed in the universe, and there 
is felt, a constantly sustaining and moving power. There is no 
accounting for existing phenomena on any other supposition. 
This mighty, sustaining, moving power is that of God. What- 



36 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ever inferior instrumentalities may be employed, it must be 
referred ultimately to him. 

6. The existence of such a book as the Bible proves the exist- 
ence of G%d. The contents of this wonderful book evince that 
it was not of mere human origin. Unaided men could no more 
have written the Bible than they could have created the world. 
Its doctrines surpass all human foresight and wisdom. Its aims 
transcend all human thought. The character of Christ, as 
exhibited in the Bible, is such as no mere man ever formed or 
conceived ; such as no pen but that of inspiration could have 
sketched. The predictions of Scripture — many of which have 
been most minutely and remarkably fulfilled — prove that it 
must have been the work of God. 

It will be seen that we here appeal, not to the declarations of 
Scripture, in proof of the divine existence, but to the Bible 
itself, as an effect, a fact. Here is the book, and here are its 
contents. And how is its existence to be accounted for, but 
by referring it to the Great First Cause of all ? 

7. The fact of miracles is conclusive proof of the divine 
existence. By miracles, I understand those interventions of 
divine power by which the regular course of nature has been 
suspended or contravened, and events have been caused to take 
place in contradiction to it. We have numerous well-authenti- 
cated accounts of such miracles in the Bible, — regarding the 
Bible now as a mere credible history. But we have far more 
numerous accounts of miracles in the teachings of science and 
of nature. I refer here to the disclosures of geological science. 
There are established laws 'by which the existing species of 
animals and vegetables may perpetuate themselves. But there 
is no law by which, when they are destroyed, other species can 
come up and take their places. The commencement of every 
new species is, therefore, a miracle. And the past history of 
the earth, as recorded in the rocks of nature, assures us that 
miracles innumerable of this kind have occurred. In repeated 
instances, the existing species of animals and vegetables all 
over the earth have been swept away, and other and more per- 
fect species have been created in their place. The miracles of 
Scripture are numerous and great ; but it is now certain that 



EXISTENCE OF GOD. 37 

the miracles of nature far transcend them in number and in 
power. Yet every proper miracle is a work of God. It is 
such as can be performed by no being but God, and is proof 
positive of the divine existence. 

8. The existence of God may be proved from the fact of a 
retributive providence. Although this life is a scene of pro- 
bation, and not of righteous retribution, yet, in particular in- 
stances, a retribution commences even here, — a retribution so 
marked and striking as to arrest the attention and challenge 
the assent of the most skeptical and unbelieving. "Who can 
doubt that the destruction of the old world by a deluge, and of 
Sodom and Gomorrah by fire from heaven, and of the Egyptians 
in the Eed Sea, were events of a retributive character ? Who 
can help regarding in the same light the sparing of Ninevah, on 
the repentance of its people, or the death of Herod (Acts xii. 
23), of Judas Iscariot, and of Ananias and Sapphira? I refer 
to the Bible here only as to any other authentic history. 

But we are indebted not to the Bible alone for our knowledge 
of retributive judgments. Other histories, and even our own 
personal observation, often make us acquainted with them. 
The dreadful overthrow of Jerusalem by Titus was manifestly 
an event of this character. So also are the judgments which 
not unfrequently overtake bold blasphemers, cruel persecutors, 
and other vile transgressors, in the midst of their wickedness, 
constraining every beholder to say with the Psalmist, " The 
Lord is known by the judgments which he executeth" — 
" Yerily, there is a God who judgeth in the earth." 

9. Clear answers to prayer prove that there is a God. No 
class of events can be better established, not only from sacred 
but profane history, and from the personal observation of the 
people of God, than answers to prayer. Such events were of 
continual occurrence in the history of God's ancient covenant 
people, and in the early history of the church of Christ. They 
occurred also among our forefathers, the early settlers of New 
England. Witness the destruction of the famous Chebucto 
fleet, in the year 1746. This great fleet, consisting of forty 
ships of war, was destined for the conquest of New England, 
and was of sufficient force, in the ordinary progress of things, 



38 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

to render that conquest certain. Our fathers, having no other 
resource, betook themselves to prayer ; and on the night follow- 
ing their general fast the entire fleet was scattered and destroyed 
by a terrible tempest. The admiral, the Duke D'Anville, over- 
come with chagrin and mortification, died almost immediately 
of apoplexy ; and the vice-admiral, in despair, put an end to 
his own life. Impious men may say that there was nothing 
remarkable in all this ; but our fathers acknowledged the hand 
of God in it, and devoutly ascribed to him the victory and the 
glory. 

But we need not look to history to find clear and conclusive 
answers to prayer. They occur in every revival of religion. 
They fall repeatedly under the notice of almost every observing 
Christian. But every such instance is proof positive that there 
is a God who hears the cries of his people, and graciously 
sends them answers of peace. 

10. God's works of grace, as well as those of nature and 
providence, demonstrate his existence. By works of grace, I 
mean those striking and permanent transformations of charac- 
ter which our Saviour denominates the new birth, and which 
involve a .radical change of heart. That there were many such 
changes in the first age of the Christian church, no one who has 
read its history can doubt. Witness the conversion of Saul of 
Tarsus, and of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost. 
Nor were such transformations of character peculiar to the 
primitive age. They have occurred in every period since. 
They are of frequent joyful occurrence in our own times. 
They are known and read of all men. They can be as sub- 
stantially proved as any other events whatever. But every 
such eyent involves the interposition of divine power and 
grace, and is proof positive of the divine existence. 

11. Every man has a witness to the existence of God in his 
own breast. I refer not here to that internal consciousness of 
God to which the pantheist pretends, but rather to an argument 
derived from our natural, indestructible feelings. There is the 
universal feeling of dependence, proclaiming the existence of an 
almighty Being, on whom we depend. There is also the feel- 
ing of accountableness, which belongs to our very nature, and 



EXISTENCE OF GOD. 39 

of which the most hardened can never entirely rid themselves, 
pointing us upward to a superior Power, to whom we must 
render an impartial account. 

12. The general consent of mankind may be adduced as evi- 
dence of the divine existence. Whether this consent arises from 
tradition, to be traced back to an original revelation, or from 
our natural feelings of dependence and accountability, or from 
the palpable proofs of the divine existence everywhere visible 
around us, or from all these causes combined, it matters not at 
all, so far as concerns the present argument. The fact of such 
consent is undeniable. With the exception of a few individuals 
here and there, who are to be regarded rather as monsters than 
men, and a few scattered savages, who are raised but little 
above the brutes, nearly the entire race of men have been 
agreed from the first in holding the doctrine of a Supreme 
Being. This doctrine has been sadly distorted, indeed, in 
many places — perhaps we ought to say in most places — where 
the light of revelation has not shined. Still, in one form or 
another, the doctrine has been held. This general agreement 
is very remarklble, and the conclusion to be drawn from it as 
to the fact of the divine existence, is very obvious. 1 

The arguments from nature and reason, in proof of the 
divine existence, are not all of them of equal strength. Some 
may strike one mind with peculiar force ; others may more 
deeply impress another. But together they constitute an 
amount of evidence conclusive and resistless. And so they 
were regarded by the Apostle Paul. " The invisible things of 
him [God] are clearly seen" — yes, cleaely seen, — "being 
understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power 
and Godhead ; so that they," who have no other light than that 
of nature, "are without excuse" (Eom. i. 20). 

We have more means, I think, of knowing God — knowing 
that he is, and what he is — than we have of knowing any other 
being whom we have not seen with our natural eyes. Perhaps 

1 "Pass over the earth," says Plutarch; "you may discover cities without walls, 
without literature, without monarchs, without palaces and wealth; where the theatre 
and the school are not known ; but no man ever saw a city without temples and gods, 
where prayers and oaths, and oracles, and sacrifices, were not used for obtaining 
pardon or averting evil." 



40 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

no one of us ever saw Gen. Washington, or Dr. Franklin ; and 
yet we do not doubt that such men once lived in this country, 
and that they sustained an important part in its history. We 
believe in the existence of these venerable men chiefly, if not 
wholly, from their works. They have left the marks of their 
existence behind them. We have their writings in our hands. 
Their memorials are recorded on almost every page of our 
country's history. And- yet how few and feeble were their 
works, compared with the nobler, mightier works of the 
Supreme Being ! And how dim the evidence of their existence 
and characters, shadowed forth from their works, compared 
with the thousand fold clearer evidence of the divine existence, 
perfections, and glories, which his works everywhere exhibit ! 
Wherever we look, whether within or without, above or 
beneath, to the right hand or to the left, to ourselves or to 
others, everywhere we meet God's handiwork. Every object 
we behold proclaims his existence, his perfection, and his 
glory : so that we may say, with the Christian poet, 

" The rolling year t 
Is full of Thee. 

Thine is the mighty hand 
That, ever busy, wheels the silent spheres ; 
Works in the secret deep ; shoots streaming thence 
The fair profusion that o'erspreads the spring ; 
Flings from the sun direct the flaming day ; 
Feeds every creature ; hurls the tempest forth j 
And, as on earth this grateful change revolves, 
With transport touches all the springs of life." 



ATHEISTICAL OBJECTIONS. 41 



LECTUKE II. 

ATHEISTICAL OBJECTIONS. 

Theee is a difference, as Dr. Chalmers has well observed, 
between atheism and. antitheism. The antitheist sets himself 
to prove positively that there is no God, — a work which no 
created being in the universe can perform, and which few have 
had the hardihood to attempt." The position of the atheist is a 
humbler one. He satisfies himself, for the most part, with nega- 
tions. He criticises the arguments of the theist, and endeavors 
to remove them. He tries to account for the phenomena of 
nature without the supposition of an intelligent first cause. 
He denies that there is any sufficient proof that God exists, 
though he is far from afiirming, positively, that he does not. 

One of the oldest and most plausible of atheistic theories is 
that of plastic, specific tendencies. It assumes that all things 
are material ; that the particles of matter are eternal ; and that 
each and all of these particles are endowed with certain specific 
tendencies, in consequence of which they are led to combine, 
and constitute different forms and organizations, such as we see 
in the world around us. Hence the fact of such organizations 
furnishes no proof at all of the divine existence. 

It will, be seen that this theory assumes that all things are 
material, and that matter is eternal, both of which propositions 
are absurd. But let that pass. Allowing matter, in its ele- 
ments, to be eternal, I deny that these elementary particles 
possess, inherently, any specific tendencies whatever. Matter 
is essentially inert, and has no tendency or capability of mov- 
ing itself any way, or of forming anything, except as it is 
wrought upon by an extraneous power. 

But this is not the only difficulty in the case. If we suppose 
the elementary particles to possess specific tendencies, can we 
rationally account for the multiform organizations in the world 
around us in this way? In order to this, we must ascribe to 

6 



42 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

each particle, not only a specific tendency, but most exquisite 
wisdom. To apply the theory to a single case : for example, to 
the organization of the human body. To account for the forma- 
tion of a body in this way, we must suppose "that one particle 
of matter tends to unite with another, and these again with 
others, but only, at first, in a right line. At length they tend 
to bend that line into a ring : and then to enlarge that ring into 
a blood-vessel ; and then to branch out into other vessels ; and 
then to compact themselves into bones ; and then to make blood ; 
and then to form nerves and flesh ; and then to extend into 
limbs ; and then (if not before) to make a heart ; and then a 
pair of lungs ; and then the skin, the hair, the nails, and so, in 
succession, all the functions of the body ; and all this without 
any contrivance or design, merely on the ground of specific 
tendencies," thus giving a thousand different and inconsistent 
tendencies to the same elementary particles, not one of which 
can be proved, or is likely, to have any such tendency at all. 

And if it is so difficult to form a body in this way, what must 
it be to form a soul? For the soul, it must be remembered, on 
the supposition before us, is all made up of material particles, 
so brought together by their specific tendencies as to constitute 
thoughts, purposes, plans, designs, emotions, passions, soaring 
imaginations, and all the other states and affections of the mind. 
Surely the advocates of such a theory ought not to complain of 
mysteries, or of unreasonable, incredible things. Their theory 
of the universe proves nothing, unless it be that wicked men 
do not like to retain God in their knowledge, and are ready to 
resort to any shifts to crowd him out of his own creation. 

Near akin to this theory is another, which also originated 
with the ancient Greeks, and has had its advocates in modern 
times. It supposes all things to be material, and matter eter- 
nal, and that each particle is endowed with life, sense, and the 
potver of motion; powers enough to enable it to perform its 
part in the multitudinous organizations of the world. 1 

It is enough to say, of the advocates of this theory, that in 
order to be rid of one great God, they suppose myriads upon 

1 This doctrine of atheism is appropriately called the Hylozoic ; as the former is the 
Hylopathic. 



ATHEISTICAL OBJECTIONS. 43 

myriads of little ones ; each particle of matter being eternal, 
self-existent, independent, intelligent ; possessing of itself, and 
in sufficient measure, the more essential attributes of the 
Supreme Being. And when we ask for the proof of a supposi- 
tion so monstrous, so contrary to our senses, and to all other 
available sources of evidence, we are only told that it may be 
so. And if it may be so, then the world, and all it contains, 
may have come into existence without the intervention of a 
great First Cause. 

A third atheistical theory — materialistic, like the last two — 
assumes that the existing organizations and compounds of 
matter were never formed ; that they are eternal ; that things 
have always existed much as they now are ; that there has been 
what is denominated an eternal series of things. But this 
eternal series of things is only a series of absurdities. It sup- 
poses each thing in the series to be dependent, — one hanging 
upon another, and that upon another, like links in an intermi- 
nable chain, — and yet the whole to be independent, — the topmost 
link (if there be any topmost) hanging upon nothing. It sup- 
poses each thing in the series to have had a beginning, and yet 
the whole to have had no beginning. It supposes the whole 
series to exist in time, and to be measured by time', and yet 
that it has existed from all eternity. There is no end to the 
absurdities to which this senseless theory may be reduced. 

But if, with all its absurdities, it should be admitted, it would 
fail entirely to account for existing facts. An eternal series 
could only perpetuate itself in the forms of organized existence 
with which it was running on. It certainly could not originate 
new species or races — any new forms of animal or vegetable 
life. And yet it is demonstrably certain that the race of men, 
and most of the existing species of animals and vegetables, have 
existed on the earth but a few thousands of years. Geology 
assures us that races of creatures much older than ourselves 
have long ago perished from the earth, and that the existing 
tribes have come into their places. Who formed the existing 
tribes ? On the ground of the eternal series, who gave existence 
to the bodies and souls of the original progenitors of man ? 

But here comes in the famed development theory, which sup- 



44 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

I 

poses that by some plastic nature or law the lower forms of 
organized existence were produced, and that these gradually 
grew or developed themselves into higher forms, and these again 
into still higher, until at length man and the present races of 
animals were brought forth. But this theory is refuted both by 
reason and fact. In the first place, there is no plastic nature or 
law by which, without a Creator, the lower forms of organized 
existence can be produced. Plastic nature of itself could no 
more produce a worm, or a shell-fish, than it could a man. 
This has been demonstrated already. If nature alone could 
ever have produced such creatures, why does it not produce 
them now? And then, secondly, the different races on the 
earth never grow or develop into other races. We have never 
seen such a thing. We have no authentic, reliable account of 
any such occurrence. By an existing law, the races living at 
any particular time, and so long as they live, may perpetuate 
themselves. But for one race to grow or develop into another 
and higher race, as a frog into a mammal, or a monkey into a 
man — this is impossible. Geological researches go to show 
that such a thing has never been, and thus furnish a complete 
refutation of this whole development theory. 

The origin of things as they exist around us has often been 
referred to chance. This was the doctrine of Democritus and 
Epicurus among the Greeks, and of Lucretius among the Latins. 
It has had many advocates in modern times. But what is 
chance ? Is it properly anything ? We use this word in refer- 
ence to events which seem to us to be fortuitous. But the for- 
tuity, it may be shown, is only in appearance. There is no 
such thing as chance in the universe. But, suppose there was 
such a thing, is chance adequate to the creation of the world 
and -of all it contains ? Is it reasonable to consider the minute 
and wonderful organizations which appear around us, display- 
ing so much of wisdom and such exquisite design, as the sport 
of chance ? La Place has well said, " There is infinity to unity 
against such a supposition." 

Various objections have been urged against the argument 
from design , — an argument which seems to us conclusive and 
incontestable. Thus Mr. Hume insists that nothing can be in- 



ATHEISTICAL OBJECTIONS. 45 

ferred from the marks .of design, apparent in the world around 
us, as to the fact of an intelligent designer, since we have never 
seen this work of world-making performed. From the mechan- 
ism of a watch, we conclude that it had an intelligent designer, 
because we have seen watches made, or known of their being 
made. But we have never seen or known of a world's being 
made, and hence we can draw no conclusions whatever as to its 
maker. But Mr. Hume mistakes entirely the ground of the 
argument from design. It is not this, that we have seen a par- 
ticular mechanism constructed or work performed. In that 
case, .we should ground our conclusion on what we had seen 
and known, — on the testimony of the senses. But here is a 
mechanism which we have never before seen, and of the origin 
of which we personally know nothing. But, on examination, 
it bears incontestable marks of having been designed, contrived, 
got up, put together, for a particular purpose. All this is palpa- 
ble. There can be no mistake about it. TTe infer at once, for 
we cannot help it, that it must have had an intelligent author 
or designer. TTe may not know at all who the author is, but 
we feel just as sure that it had such an author as though we 
had seen the work performed. 

Again : it is denied that there are any sure marks of design 
in the organization of animals, since the parts and members 
which they retain are only such as are essential to their exist- 
ence, all the other parts having been shuffled off and lost in the 
progress of their development. But why have we not seen 
animals, during the progress of their development, shuffling off 
their unessential parts — dropping some unimportant members 
which chanced to get stuck upon them ? If nature has made 
so many abortions, as on this theory she must have made, why 
have not some of them come to light? 

But it is not true that animals retain only such parts and 
members as are essential to their existence. They have parts 
which are perpetuated from generation to generation ; which 
are not essential ; which are merely ornamental, or convenient, 
or in some way conducive to their happiness. Such is the hair 
on our heads, and the nails on our fingers and toes. Such is 
the power of speech, and some even of the outward senses. 



46 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

We .know that these are not essential to our existence, because 
persons exist, in some instances, long years without them. 

It has been further objected to the argument from design, 
that, if it proves anything, it proves too much. For does not 
God himself exhibit, in the various manifestations which he 
makes of himself, marks of design ? And will it not follow, 
from the argument, that he, too, must have had a designer? 
This objection owes all its plausibility to a slight change in the 
use of' the word "design." There is an active design, and a 
passive Resign. God does, indeed, show marks of design in the 
former sense, — that is, of possessing skill and wisdom, of being 
an intelligent, active designer ; but does he show any marks 
of passive design, such as is exhibited in his works ? Does he 
show marks of having been himself designed, contrived, con- 
structed, got up, with a view to some object or end? Who will 
presume to say, much less attempt to prove, as much as this? 
His very nature and attributes all proclaim the contrary. 

Persons inclined to be atheists often impose upon themselves 
and others by mere names. They talk learnedly about the 
powers of nature, and ascribe everything to its efficiency. And 
yet what is nature but the established constitution of things ? 
And who established this constitution but the Almighty ? 

The processes and laws of nature are in fact the God of the 
pantheist, and are appealed to as sufficient to accomplish every- 
thing. But it is demonstrable that what are called the laws of 
nature are but established modes of divine operation. They 
are laws which the Supreme Being has prescribed to himself in 
directing the ordinary movements of his providence. They 
are, as the Scriptures more accurately express it, "the ordi- 
nances of heaven" (Job xxxviii. 33). There are no inherent 
powers and tendencies in bodies, in virtue of which they move 
themselves, and move only in particular ways. This has been 
shown under a former head. And modern pantheism, at least 
in one of its forms, is but a revival of the old atheistic theory 
of specific tendencies. 

It has been said that though the world and its organizations 
must have had a cause, and a sufficient cause, yet this may not 
have been the first cause of all, the eternal God, but only some 



ATHEISTICAL OBJECTIONS. 47 

subordinate agent. But do not creation and providence, and 
the authorship of the Bible, and the performance of miracles, 
and other works which we ascribe to our alleged First Cause, 
involve divine, independent, omnipotent powers, — powers 
which can belong to no being but the eternal God ? What infe- 
rior, dependent agent, himself a creature of the Almighty, 
can perform such works as these ? And then, what is gained 
to the atheist by supposing that this great being, the Creator of 
heaven and earth, is not himself the first originating cause of 
all ? There must still be an originating cause somewhere, unless 
we will suppose an eternal series of inferior, dependent causes, 
which is a palpable absurdity. So that the atheist .does not rid 
himself of an eternal God by thrusting the First Cause further 
back, and impiously denying appropriate honors to the Creator. 

From the position taken in the last objection, namely, that 
creation does not imply omnipotent power — persons sometimes 
pass over to the other extreme, and affirm that creation is an 
impossibility. It is what cannot be done, even by omnipotent 
power. This seems to have been the opinion of all the ancient 
heathen philosophers. Assuming the axiom Ex nihilo nihil fit, 
even those of them who believed in a God supposed it impossi- 
ble for him to create a world from nothing. He could only 
form it from preexisting and eternal materials. But is crea- 
tion, in the proper sense of the term, an impossibility? An 
impossibility to whom ? To us, no doubt, it is impossible ; but 
is it so to Omnipotence ? Is it impossible to a being possessed 
of such attributes and perfections as all consistent theists 
ascribe to God? Omnipotence can do anything which does 
not involve a contradictioii, an absurdity ; and that creation 
from nothing is chargeable with absurdity has never yet been 
proved, and never can be. 

Finally, it is alleged that this world is full of imperfections ; 
that it is not made well enough to be regarded as the work of 
an infinitely wise and benevolent being. This objection will 
come into view again, and perhaps more than once, in the 
course of these Lectures. At present it is enough to say that 
what are called imperfections may be such only in appearance, 
arising from our very limited and partial view of things. 



48 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

" Our ignorance may be the cause 
Why thus we blame our Maker's laws; 
Parts of his ways alone we know : 
'Tis all that man can see below." 

Could we survey the great system iu all its parts, and scan it 
with the eye of God, we should find it all perfect like himself. 

On a subject like that which has been considered, difficulties, 
of course, are to be expected, since most parts of it lie quite 
beyond the reach of our faculties, and are among the secret 
things which belong only to the Infinite mind. Still, the evi- 
dence for the existence of God, shining out from the operations 
of his hand, are, as I said at the close of my last Lecture, con- 
clusive and abundant — sufficient to "convict all those who reject 
it of guilt, and to cover them with confusion and shame. 

In conclusion, let us keep in mind the greatness of the truth 
which has been before us in this discussion, — the greatest, the 
most important that we shall ever have occasion to contemplate. 
It is great in itself. It is great in all its relations and results. 
It lies at the foundation of all religion. It is implied in all our 
acts of duty and devotion, — in all our hopes and consolations 
as Christians. Give to the Christian his God, — a reconciled 
Father in Christ— and he can be happy under any circum- 
stances. But take from him the God in whom he trusts, and 
what has he mo? e ? If it were desirable to be an atheist, we 
have seen that, in the due exercise of reason, it would not be 
possible ; and if it were possible, certainly it Would be of all 
things most undesirable. It matters little what form or theory 
of atheism persons adopt ; all are alike destitute of one cheer- 
ing, redeeming quality. They fail alike to furnish support 
under present trials, while they leave all that is past in utter 
mystery, and all that is future in the most bewildering and 
appalling uncertainty. With the utmost satisfaction, therefore,* 
we should receive and ponder the glorious truth which has 
been established in the foregoing discussion, — There is a God. 



THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 49 



LECTUEE III. 

THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

Having already proved the existence of a great originating 
Cause of all things, which we call God, and replied to some of 
the more common atheistical objections, we next inquire as to 
the attributes and perfections of God. What ideas are we to 
form of him ? What kind of a being is he ? 

Theologians have distinguished between the natural and moral 
attributes of God ; but, without following this division, I shall 
proceed to treat of the different divine attributes in the order in 
which, as it seems to me, they maybe best investigated. 

It will be impossible in a single lecture fully to discuss a 
subject which might well occupy volumes. I can but touch 
upon the different attributes of God, and show how they may 
be demonstrate!!, in the briefest manner possible. 

Three of the more essential attributes of God — namely, his 
self-existence, his eternal existence, and his literal independence 
— are all involved in the very idea of him as the first originat- 
ing cause. Thus, if he is the first cause of all things, then 
he is himself without cause. And if there is no cause of his 
existence out of himself, then he must have the grounds, the 
elements of existence within himself; which is but saying that 
he is self -existent. 

Again: if God is the first cause of* all things, and himself 
without cause, then he must be without beginning; which is 
but saying that his existence is eternal. 

Still again : if God is the first cause of all things, and himself 
without cause, then he has no dependence on any external 
cause ; in other words, he is strictly independent. All other 
things are dependent on him, but he is dependent on nothing 
out of himself. 
7 



50 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

It will be seen at once, from these few remarks, that the 
three great, essential attributes of self-existence, eternal exist- 
ence, and independence, are all involved in the one idea of 
God as the first originating cause. 

I proceed, therefore, to a fourth divine attribute, and would 
say that God is a spiritual being ; in other words,' he is spirit, 
and not matter. Inert, unthinking matter could never have 
been the creator of this material world ; much less could it 
have been the creator of mind. Indeed, matter alone cannot 
create anything. It cannot move or act at all, except as it is 
acted upon by some exterior cause. Besides, it is evident 
from the works of God that he is an intelligent being. But 
intelligence is an attribute, not of matter, but of spirit. It 
follows, therefore, that God is a spirit. 

5. God is an omnipresent being. This may be proved, first, 
from his necessary existence. A necessary existence, like neces- 
sary truths, is not confined to time or space. As a necessary 
truth is true everywhere, so a necessary existence must be 
everywhere. The necessity from which God exists is as great 
in all places as it is in any place. It is universal — omnipresent. 
Hence God is an omnipresent being. 

The same is proved, secondly, from the works of God. No 
being can directly act where he does not exist. But the 
agency of God — the Creator, the Upholder, and Disposer of 
all things — is needed, and is felt throughout the universe. 
Hence he must exist throughout the universe, or — which is the 
same — is omnipresent. . 

We are not to conceive of the omnipresence of God, how- 
ever, as a universal, material extension; so that a part of him 
is in one place and a part in another : for, being a spirit, God 
is not divisible into parts. Besides, something more than a 
part of God is needed here, and everywhere, for the perform- 
ance of divine works. The presence of God — not a part of 
God — is needed on the earth, and needed in heaven, and 
needed in every place throughout the universe. In short, the 
omnipresence of God is a spiritual and not a material omnipres- 
ence, the fact of which we know, but the manner of which we 
may not be able to understand or explain. It is a perfect mystery. 



THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 51 

6. God is omnipotent. As much as this is implied in the 
idea which we have of him as the great originating cause. If 
he is the first cause of all things, he has literally jpoiver over 
all; which is but saying that he is omnipotent. 

The omnipotence of God is also manifest in his works. No 
greater power can be conceived of as possible than that which 
God has exhibited in creating, sustaining, and governing the 
universe. The being who can do what God has actually done, 
and is doing, can do everything possible, — everything which 
does not imply an absurdity — a contradiction. 

7. God is omniscient. This is evident, first from his omni- 
presence. As God is everywhere present, an intelligent spirit, 
it would seem that he must know everything. What can be 
hidden from such a being ? What can escape the notice of his 
eye?* 

His works also show that his knowledge is infinite. What 
greater knowledge can be conceived of as possible, than that 
which he has exhibited in the operations of his hand ? 

Besides, God must be supposed to know himself, and to 
know all his works ; and this is to know everything. 

8 . God is infinite in ivisdom. I use " wisdom " here in a purely 
intellectual sense, having no respect to moral character. And 
in this sense, infinite wisdom is but a modification of omni- 
science. It is omniscience exercised, put forth, in the discern- 
ing of ends, and the adapting of means for their accomplishment. 
And certainly, he who can adapt means to ends, as we see them 
adapted in the world around us ; he who can form such deep 
and boundless plans, and set on foot the appropriate agents for 
their accomplishment ; he who can arrange, establish, and carry 
forward, in ceaseless harmony, the entire order of the universe, 
— he must be infinitely wise. What wisdom can be conceived 
of higher, greater, more perfect than this ? 

9. God is & free moral agent. As much as this may be 
inferred from what has been already said. If he possesses 
almighty power, then he must have the . power of action* 
Without this, what could power do, or what would it be? 
And God's omnipotence being associated with intelligence, 



52 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

omniscience, infinite wisdom, he must have the power of moral 
action. In other words, he is a moral agent. 

His works also indicate most clearly design, plan , preference, 
choice, and proclaim their author to be an active being. And if 
God is an agent at all, certainly he is a free agent. Who or 
what has power to control or limit him, or prevent his accom- 
plishing what is good in his sight ? 

10. God is an infinitely holy being. As he is a free moral 
agent, he must possess a moral character. He must be either 
holy or sinful. And whatever may be his moral qualities, they 
must be possessed in the highest possible degree. The ques- 
tion, then, is one (so far as it can be a question) of the greatest 
interest, What is the moral character of God? Is he infinitely 
benevolent, or infinitely malevolent ; infinitely holy, or infinitely 
sinful ? 

That God is holy, and not sinful, is evident, first, from what 
we know of the laws of moral agency, and of the natures of 
holiness and sin. The motives to holy action are always in- 
trinsically stronger than those in favor of sin. This results 
from the very natures of holiness and sin. And with these 
stronger motives in favor of holiness, God, as an omniscient 
being, must be perfectly acquainted. He cannot possibly be 
blinded or deceived. He must perceive the motives, one way 
and the other, just as they are, and must be in a situation to 
give them their exact relative weight and influence. May we 
not infer, therefore, from what we know of the laws of moral 
action, that the intrinsically stronger motive will always prevail 
with him ; that he is, and will be, forever holy ? 

Again : it may be inferred from the benevolence manifested 
in the works of God, that he is himself a benevolent or holy 
being. His works display, not only his wisdom, but his good- 
ness. They are all calculated, except so far as they have been 
perverted by sin, to promote the happiness, and not the misery, 
of his creatures. The return of the seasons ; the constant suc- 
cession of day and night ; the adaptation of creatures to the 
circumstances in which they are placed ; the provision made for 
the supply of their wants, and in supplying them for the pro- 



THE ATTEIBUTES OF GOD. 53 

motion of their happiness, — these and a thousand other things, 
go to show that the God of nature is benevolent or holy. 

The holiness of God may also be proved from the holiness of 
his law. I refer not here to that law written in the Bible, but 
to the law written on the heart of every human being. That 
there is such a law, and that it is holy, — or, to speak more lit- 
erally, that all men have a natural consciousness of the right, 
and of their obligations to follow it, — I hardly need stop to 
prove. Every man has a witness to the truth of this statement 
in his own breast. But if God has imprinted his law on the very 
hearts of his intelligent creatures, and if it is a holy law, how is 
the inference to be resisted that he is himself a holy being ? 

This argument may be presented in a somewhat different light. 
God has so constituted us that we not only perceive the differ- 
ence between right and wrong, but, in conscience, we approve 
the right and detest the wrong. We cannot help it. We can- 
not help despising and detesting the wrong-doer, if we would. 
Now, would God have so constituted us if he were himself a 
wrong-doer? Would he have so constituted us, and all other 
intelligent creatures, if he were not himself a right-doer, or — 
which is the same — if he were not a holy being ? 

The holiness of God may also be shown from the holiness of 
the Bible. In a former Lecture I proved the existence of God 
from the existence of the Bible ; considering the Bible as an 
effect which, like every other, must have an adequate cause. I 
now argue from the character of this effect to the character of 
its cause. No reader of the Bible can doubt that it is a holy 
book ; that it inculcates holiness and discountenances and con- 
demns all sin. Its obvious and actual tendencies are to promote 
holiness in the earth. But, if such are the character and ten- 
dencies of the Bible, then what shall we say as to the character 
of its Author ? Must he not be a holy being ? 

The holiness of God, which has now been demonstrated, in- 
cludes all his moral perfections. If he is holy, then is he benev- 
olent and good, just and merciful, true and faithful ; for these 
are but particular branches or forms of holiness. If God is 
perfectly holy, then his holy character combines in perfection 
every form of moral excellence. 



54 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

It has been objected to the moral perfection of God that he 
has suffered so much sin and misery to exist under his govern- 
ment. If God has permitted the existence of sin, because he 
loves it, or approves of it, this would be inconsistent with his 
moral perfection. Or if he has permitted it, because he could 
not prevent it in a moral system, this would conflict with his 
natural perfections. .But, suppose God to have permitted the 
existence of sin because (hateful as it is in itself, and much as he 
hates it) he sees that he can overrule its existence for a greater 
amount of good in the end. It is not incumbent on me here to 
show that such actually is the reason why sin is permitted ; but 
suppose it to be so. Suppose the great plan of providence, which 
God has adopted and is carrying into effect, and which we know 
involves, to a certain extent, the existence of sin and misery — 
suppose it to be the best plan possible on the whole. Mani- 
festly, on this ground, the existence of sin and misery involves 
nothing against the moral perfection of God. 

So far from it, their existence is demanded by the highest 
moral perfection — by the purest benevolence. If the existing 
plan of providence is, on the whole, the best one possible, not- 
withstanding it involves, to a certain extent, the existence of sin 
and misery, then God ought, in all goodness, to have adopted it. 
And, having adopted it, he ought to carry it into effect. Nor 
is this doing evil that good may come ; for, so far as God is 
concerned, it is not doing evil at all. All that God does in the 
matter is good, and only good. All is done from motives of 
the purest benevolence. 

11. God is a perfectly happy being. In the possession of 
those attributes which have been ascribed to him, he has infinite 
sources of blessedness within himself. He is happy in the con- 
templation of his own amiable and perfect character ; happy in- 
the possession and gratification of all holy affections ; happy in 
the consciousness of having formed, in eternity, the best con- 
ceivable plan of operation ; and happy in seeing this great and 
glorious plan going into complete effect. No enemy can ever 
thwart or defeat any part of his wise and holy purposes. No 
enemy can prevent the ultimate accomplishment of the greatest 
possible good. No enemy can tarnish the glory or mar the 



THE ATTEIBUTES OF GOD. 55 

felicity of the Supreme Being in the smallest degree. So far 
from this, the very wrath of enemies will be made to contribute 
to his praise, and the remainder of wrath he will restrain. 

It has been objected to the perfect happiness of God, that the 
many evils existing under his government must, in their very 
nature, he painful to him. How can he behold them, as he is 
constrained to do, and not ho, pained to the hearts But as, on 
the theory we adopt, the evils which exist are but incidental 
evils, — incidental in some way to the best possible system, and 
which are to be overruled in the end for the greatest good, — so 
the pains, which God feels in view of them are but incidental 
pains — incidental in some way to his highest happiness. So 
far from diminishing his happiness on the whole, God could not, 
on the theory we adopt, be perfectly happy were any other sys- 
tem of things adopted than that which he has chosen, and which 
his providence is carrying into effect. 

12. God is immutable. He is immutable as to his substance 
and the mode of his existence. As he exists from an inherent 
and eternal necessity, without depending on anything out of 
himself, nothing ever had, or can have the least influence upon 
him, to change his substance or the mode of his existence. 

God is immutable, also, in all his perfections; immutably 
omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent ; immutably wise and 
holy, just and merciful, true and faithful, good and happy. 
The perfections of God belong to his very nature. Without 
them he could not be God. They are as unchangeable, there- 
fore, as his existence. 

Again : God is immutable in his purposes. We often change 
our purposes. Something new, unanticipated, comes up, which 
makes it necessary to change them. But the eternal purposes 
and plans of God undergo no change. They were formed from 
the beginning, in view of all possible contingencies, — in view 
of everything which could ever take place. Consequently, 
nothing unforeseen can come up to change one of the purposes 
of God, and none of them will ever be changed. 

If it be asked whether God is in such a sense immutable as to 
have no succession in his mind, I feel constrained to answer this 
question in the negative. I think him immutable in every 



56 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

respect which does not imply imperfection. But, to suppose 
him immutable in such a sense that he can have no succession 
of views or exercises, no feelings, no affections, no aversions, 
preferences, or acts, — this would imply imperfection. It would 
be inconsistent with his doing anything, or possessing any 
moral character whatever. It would render him more like the 
sleeping Brumha of the Hindoos than like the God of nature 
and the Bible. 

There is a real difference between the actual existence of 
things and their merely purposed and foreseen existence ; and 
changes from the latter of these states to the former are of con- 
tinual occurrence. Ten thousand things which existed only in 
the divine purpose yesterday, have come into actual existence 
to-day. These perpetual changes God not only causes, but^er- 
ceives. He must perceive them, if he views things truly, — 
views things as they really are. And the perception of them, as 
they occur (although not bringing into notice anything new, 
unforeseen, unanticipated) , yet constitutes a perpetual succes- 
sion of views. At the same time, if God is unchangeably per- 
fect, his moral exercises and feelings must be so modified as to 
correspond to this continual change of views. To illustrate the 
matter, we will suppose a sinner to have been converted this 
morning. Now, God does not view this person to-day as he 
did yesterday. Nor does he feel towards him to-day as he did 
yesterday. To suppose that he did, would imply imperfection. 
The day preceding Paul's conversion, God saw him a virulent 
persecutor, "breathing out threatening and slaughter against 
the saints " ; and he felt towards him as he ought to feel, Paul 
being possessed of such a character. The day after Paul's con- 
version God saw him a very different person, and he had very 
different feelings in regard to him. This illustrates what is 
meant by a succession in the divine mind ; not that anything 
new or unanticipated comes up to the view of God, but that 
there is a constant succession in his views and exercises, cor- 
responding to the perpetual flow of changes which is going on 
in his presence and under his hand throughout the universe. 

It follows from what has been said that God is (what he was 
represented to be at the commencement of these Lectures) liter- 



THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 57 

ally & person. There are some in these days, calling themselves 
Christians, and even Christian ministers, who deny the person- 
ality of God. God is not a person, but rather & personification 
of the powers, processes, and laws of nature. It is not too much 
to say of such characters, by whatever name they may choose 
to be called, that they are, in fact, atheists. They believe in a 
figurative, and not a literal God, — a figure of speech, and not a 
reality. No atheist ever denied that there were established 
powers and laws of nature ; and those who personify these and 
call them God, are not less atheists than others who prefer to 
speak out their infidelity in more literal terms. 

The great God of nature, of whose existence and perfections 
we have essayed to treat, is a literal, substantial being — a per- 
son. He is not to be identified with the powers and laws of 
nature ; — powers which himself wields, laws which he has him- 
self established. The attributes we have ascribed to him are 
all personal attributes, and prove him to be an all-wise, all- 
holy, all-powerful, perfect, and glorious person. 

I conclude this discussion by saying that God is one. The 
unity of God is not, as some have asserted, among the most 
obvious of nature's teachings ; and yet it is plainly enough in- 
dicated in the book of nature, as well as in the brighter volume 
of inspiration. It is not easy to see how two or more beings, 
possessing such attributes as have been ascribed to God, could 
exist in the universe together. If one fills all immensity with 
his presence, what room is to be found for another? If one 
alone is able to perform everything, and if his agency is actually 
concerned in all that takes place, what is there left for another 
to do ? 

The unity of design, so manifest in all the works of God, 
seems also to indicate the unity of his being. And if it be said 
that these are not necessarily the works of one being, but may 
as well be ascribed to several perfectly harmonious beings, it is 
enough to reply that only one God is needed. One great First 
Cause, such as has been described, is enough to account for all 
the phenomena ; and it certainly would be unreasonable and 
superfluous to suppose the existence of more Gods than one, 
when one alone is necessary. * 

8 



58 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

I have now finished all that I propose at present to offer in 
regard to the existence and attributes of God, as discoverable by 
the light of nature. And notwithstanding all the difficulties of 
the subject, what a wonderful and glorious being has been pre- 
sented to our view ! Existing from eternity, and from a neces- 
sity of his own nature, with all other beings and things depend- 
ent on him, and he dependent on nothing out of himself, — 
omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent ; immutable in all his 
perfections and attributes ; infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, 
goodness, and truth, — who would not love and honor such a 
being? Who would not adore, and fear, and worship before 
him? Who would not deem it a blessing to be his creature, to 
live under his government, and. to obey his laws? Who would 
not unite with the hosts of heaven in singing : " Thou are wor- 
thy ', Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou 
hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were 
created?" 



NEED OF A KEVELATION. 59 



LECTUEE IV. 

NEED OF A REVELATION". 

We have been investigating the evidence of the divine exist- 
ence and perfections, or what is usually called natural religion, 
from the light of reason and nature. There are those who tell 
us that this is enough. "The book of nature," they say, "is 
ever open ; its teachings are clear and ample ; and we need no 
more." Without depreciating at all the clearness or the import- 
ance of that light which shines forth from the works of God, I 
shall endeavor to show, in what follows, that we do stand in 
need of additional light. The light of divine revelation is need- 
fid for us, and should be thankfully accepted by us. 

When we insist, however, upon the necessity of a revelation, 
we must not be understood to say that the light of nature would 
be insufficient, were the best possible use made of it, to guide a 
soul to heaven. It would be sufficient, undoubtedly, for an in- 
nocent, unfallen soul. Such an one might come to the knowledge 
of God ; might love him, serve him, and be prepared to enjoy 
him here and hereafter, without any supernatural revelation. 
The same, too, may be said, perhaps, in regard to a fallen, 
guilty soul. By making the best possible use of the teachings 
of nature, such an one might come to the knowledge of God 
and his law ; might see his sins, and repent of them ; and might 
cast himself upon divine mercy ; though he could know nothing, 
for the time, of the particular method in which the divine mercy 
was to be exercised towards him. He might have the element 
of faith in Christ, without the form of it. In other words, he 
might have that which would be faith in Christ, so soon as he 
came where Christ was, or came to the knowledge of him ; in 
which case, I suppose, he would be saved by him. I can 



60 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

conceive of such a character as a pious heathen, — a heathen rec- 
onciled to God, and prepared essentially for heaven. Whether 
there have been any such characters, and, if so, how many, I 
pretend not to say. I hope there have been some ; and the 
opposite of this is not implied in anything I am about to say as 
to our need of divine revelation. 

I have spoken here of what might be done, in heathen lands, 
on supposition the best possible use was made of the light and 
the teachings of nature. But is the best possible use made of 
these teachings ? Has it ever been ? Is it likely to be ? Is not 
the light of nature everywhere perverted and abused ? And, 
to prevent us all from perishing together, do we not need more 
and stronger light, — a light shining down upon us directly from 
heaven ? 

1. A revelation from God is needed to make us acquainted 
with many new and important truth s,— truths in regard to 
which the teachings of nature afford no light at all. Such, for 
example, are the peculiar mode of the divine existence, — three 
persons in one God ; the appropriate manner of worshipping the 
Supreme Being ; the introduction of sin ; the gift of the Saviour ; 
the doctrine of atonement by his death ; the descent and work 
of the Holy Spirit ; the provisions and ordinances of the gospel ; 
the resurrection of the body ; the general judgment ; with the 
endless awards and retributions which are to follow it. Now, 
these are all of them important truths, — some of them vastly 
and vitally so. Yet they are subjects in regard to which nature's 
voice is dumb. She teaches nothing contrary to them, and noth- 
iug about them. They are purely subjects of revelation. And 
do we not need a revelation to enlighten us in regard to topics 
such as these? On subjects so essential to our spiritual and 
eternal welfare, to our happiness in this life and forever, how 
can we afford to live and die in ignorance and darkness ? 

2. Vie need a revelation, not only to make us acquainted 
with new truths, but to republish and confirm many things 
which are taught by the light of nature. Such are the being 
and perfections of God ; the requisitions and sanctions of his 
law ; the chief end and happiness of man ; the immortality of 
the soul ; and a future state of rewards and punishments. On 



NEED OF A KEVELATION. 61 

these points, and others connected with them, the teachings of 
nature are not, indeed, silent. She has a voice, and it should 
be heard. And yet her responses are so equivocal and uncertain ; 
they are so far from being clear, full, and decisive ; they possess 
so little of authority and influence, that in practice they do but 
little good. The wisest of the philosophers have been in doubt 
respecting them, and have not been guided in their conduct by 
them. Thus Socrates, when about to die, tells his friends : "I 
hope I am now going to good men, though this I would not 
take upon me positively to affirm." And Cicero, having spoken* 
of the several opinions which had been entertained concerning 
the nature and duration of the soul, says : "Which of these is 
true, God only knows ; and which is the most probable, is a 
very great question." Cicero also introduces one of his philo- 
sophical companions as saying, "When I read the arguments 
for the soul's immortality, I think I am convinced ; but as soon 
as I lay the book aside, and begin to reason with myself, my 
conviction is gone." It was this which led Seneca to say, 
that " immortality, however desirable, was rather promised 
than proved " by those who had gone before him. The truth 
is, the more obvious of nature's teachings on the subject of reli- 
gion — such as the being and perfections of God, the immor- 
tality of the soul, and a future state of rewards and punish- 
ments — all require to be republished and confirmed, and to 
have certainty, weight, and authority imparted to them by a 
revelation from heaven. 

3. A revelation is needed to furnish an increase of motive to 
the performance of duty. Dim as the light of nature is, those 
who have no other light know, in general, much better than 
they do; and they will be condemned hereafter, not for their 
want of light, but for their abuse of it. They sin against the 
light they have. They break the law of God inscribed upon 
the heart, and do violence to their own convictions of duty. In 
short, the motives which the religion of nature presents, though 
sufficient to leave the heathen without excuse, are found practi- 
cally to have but little influence. They need the more exciting 
and weighty motives of the gospel to restrain and subdue the 



62 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

power of sin, and, by the divine blessing, to become the means 
of their salvation. 

These several positions, as to our need of divine revelation, 
are all of them confirmed, and more than confirmed, in the 
melancholy history of the heathen nations. 

1. The religions of the heathen have always been, and are 
now, a miserable compound of falsehood, superstition, and cor- 
ruption. In proof of this I need only refer to the character of 
their divinities, the nature of their worship, and the cruelties 
and immoralities everywhere perpetrated, not in contradiction 
of their religious theories, but under their sanction. Among 
the ancient heathen, temples and altars were erected to all the 
passions, diseases, fears, and evils to which mankind are subject, 
and rites were offered corresponding to the characters of their 
divinities. Some of these were vindictive and sanguinary; 
others were jealous, wrathful, and deceptive ; while all were 
adulterous and obscene. Not a few of them were monsters of 
wickedness, whose worship, of course, was absurd, licentious, 
and cruel. Prostitution was systematically annexed to many 
of the old pagan temples, and constituted a principal source o 
their revenue. Other impurities and cruelties were practised 
in them, at the very thought of which the human mind revolts. 

Nor are the religions of modern heathen nations at all better 
than those of the ancient. In Asia and Africa, in the wilds of 
America and the islands of the sea, the most degrading divini- 
ties are worshipped, and with every form of obscenity and cru- 
elty. In consequence of the labors of missionaries, this subject 
is much better understood than it was only a few years ago ; 
and every ray of light which has been shed upon it serves only 
to reveal the grossness of its enormities. Not a missionary 
paper or journal is published, touching the religious rites of the 
heathen nations, which is not a standing testimony to their need 
of a revelation from heaven. 

2. The philosophy of the heathen has been much of it worse 
than nothing, and none of it has been at all effectual in pro- 
moting their moral and spiritual good. The Epicurean philoso- 
phy, by making pleasure the great end of life, held out not only 



NEED OF A REVELATION. 63 

a license, but encouragement, to every species of immorality. 
The philosophy of the Stoics — which was a rigid fatalism — 
was little if at all better. The Pyrrhonics were universal skep- 
tics, denying the very existence of truth. Plato, in his Republic, 
recommends a community of wives and of children, and thinks 
it right that maimed and imperfect children should be put to 
death. Aristippus maintained that it was " lawful for a wise 
man to steal, or to commit adultery or sacrilege, when opportu- 
nity offered ; since none of these actions are naturally evil, and 
aie so regarded only by silly and illiterate people." Seneca 
pleads for suicide in the following terms : " If thy mind be mel- 
archoly and in misery, thou mayest soon put a period to thy 
wietched condition. Wherever thou lookest, there is an end to 
it. Seest thou that precipice ? there thou mayest have liberty. 
Seest thou that sea, that river, that well? liberty is at the bot- 
tom of it. Seest thou that little tree ? freedom hangs upon it. 
Thine own neck, thine own throat, may be a refuge to thee from 
such bondage ; and so may every vein in thy body." 

The teachings of the ancient philosophers were not all of 
them, indeed, of the character above described ; but their best 
speculations were doubtful and discordant, lacking motive and 
authority to exert a good influence either upon themselves or 
their pupils. Their instructions, also, were given in private, 
or to a select few, and were not expected to benefit the people 
generally. Concerning these they gave themselves no trouble, 
regarding them as little better than brute beasts. In short, the 
wisest of the heathen philosophers deplored their want of light, 
and despaired of seeing the world reformed until they were 
favored with a teacher from heaven. 

3. The morals of the heathen ever have been, and are now, 
deplorable. We infer that it must have been so, from what has 
been already said. With their religions, their teachers, their 
customs, their laws, how could they be otherwise than degraded 
and corrupt? No people can be expected to be much better 
than their gods. But certainly if the heathen, in general, were 
not better than their gods, their characters must have been 
exceedingly defective. 

But as to the actual state of morals among the heathen in 



64 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ancient times, the world is full of evidence. Every command 
of the decalogue, every principle of true morality, were openly 
and shamelessly violated. Debauchery and uncleanness in their 
most revolting forms, profaneness, theft, lying, infanticide, sui- 
cide, war, slavery, cannibalism, and almost every other kind of 
wickedness and cruelty prevailed. No man ever had a better 
opportunity of knowing the character of the ancient heathen 
than the Apostle Paul ; and the description which he has given 
of it, in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, is strictly 
applicable to the heathen now : " Filled with all unrighteous- 
ness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness ; full 
of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, back- 
biters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boaster's, inventors of 
evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, cove- 
nant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerci- 
ful." Need anything more be said to show that characters such 
as these require something beyond the mere teachings of nature 
in order to their reformation and salvation ? 

4. But we need not go to the heathen alone to show the in- 
efficacy of nature's light. The characters of modern infidels, 
with few exceptions, prove the same. Infidelity first appeared 
in England in the seventeenth century. From thence it spread 
into France, Germany, and other parts of the Christian world. 
And now, what have been the characters of most of these leading 
infidels? The morals of Rochester, during his infidel life, were 
too grossly vile to need any comment. Woolston was a bold 
blasphemer. Blount solicited his sister-in-law to marry him, 
and being refused, he put an end to his life. Tindall was orig- 
inally a Protestant, then a Papist, and then a Protestant again, 
merely to suit his own convenience. At the' same time he was 
infamous for his vices, and for his total want of moral principle. 
He is said to have died with this prayer on his lips : " If there 
is a God, I desire that he may have mercy on me." Hobbes 
wrote his Leviathan to serve the cause of Charles I. ; but when 
Charles fell, he turned it to the defence of Cromwell, and made 
a merit of it to the Protector. All this he afterwards confessed 
to Lord Clarendon. Morgan was a liar and a hypocrite. He 
professed himself a Christian in those very writings in which he 



NEED OF A EEVELATION. 65 

labored to destroy Christianity. Voltaire, in a letter still extant, 
requested his friend B'Alembert to tell for him a downright lie, 
in denying that he was the author of the Philosophical Diction- 
ary ; and D'Alembert in his answer informed him that he had 
done it. Rosseau was a gross profligate, who alternately pro- 
fessed and abjured the Roman and the -Protestant religions, 
without believing either. He died in the act of uttering a noto- 
rious falsehood to his Maker. The characters of the French 
infidels, in the time of the* first revolution, were degraded and 
brutal beyond description. Having publicly discarded God and 
Christ, and enthroned the goddess of reason in the person of a 
vile prostitute, they proceeded to turn their whole land into a 
brothel, and to deluge it with blood. 

It should be remembered, too, in this connection, that neither 
the heathen in ancient times, nor modern infidels, have been 
wholly unblest by the light of revelation. Some of the best 
things in the writings of the old philosophers may be traced 
either to their acquaintance with the Jewish Scriptures, or 
through tradition to the revelations made originally to man ; 
while some of the more respectable of modern infidels would 
have been very different characters from what they were had it 
not been for the restraints of Christian society and a religious 
education ; and their writings would have been very different (if 
indeed they had written at all) had it not been for the instruc- 
tions and good influences of the Bible. 

But if a revelation from heaven is so necessary to man, why, 
it may be asked, has it been confined to so small a portion of 
our race ? Why has it not been given to all men ? These are 
fair questions, and they are entitled to a fair and full answer. 
I reply, therefore, — 

1. God has given to all men more light than they improve. 
The condemnation of the heathen will be grounded, not on their 
want of light, but their abuse of it. God has given to all men 
light enough, if improved in the best possible manner, to guide 
them to heaven. These points have been made clear in the 
foregoing discussion. Hence — 

2. God was under no obligations, in point of justice, to give 
to any of the human family additional light.- He might make a 



66 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

revelation, in his mercy, if he pleased ; or, if such was not his 
pleasure, he might, without any impeachment, leave his erring 
creatures to their own chosen way. Hence — 

3. If God is pleased to make a revelation to only a part of 
mankind, the others have no reason to complain. They still 
have more light than they improve ; and light enough, if im- 
proved in the best manner, to guide them to heaven. 

But these replies to the objection above stated, though in 
themselves sufficient, are not those on which I would chiefly 
rely. I remark, therefore, — 

4. God did, at the first, reveal himself to all men, and to all 
alike. The revelations which were made to our first parents, 
and to their immediate descendants, were a common gift. They 
were imparted and intended for the benefit of the race. And 
then, at the repeopling of the world by Noah, God again re- 
vealed himself to all alike. He revealed himself not only to 
the posterity of Shem, but also to the immediate descendants of 
Ham and Japhet. The proper question, therefore, is not, Why 
has not God given his revelations to all men? but, Why have 
his revelations, to so great an extent, been disregarded and 
lost ? They were originally made to all ; but vast portions of 
our corrupted family, because they did not like to retain God 
in their knowledge, have lost them, and sunk into heathenish 
darkness and ignorance. 

And after the knowledge of the true God was lost, except in 
the family of Abraham, what pains were taken (if I may be 
allowed such an expression) to extend this important knowledge 
to the surrounding nations ! For this purpose, Abraham was 
sent into Canaan, and the Israelites into Egypt, and Jonah to 
Nineveh, and the Jews to Babylon. Prophecies were uttered 
and fulfilled, miracles were wrought, and divine judgments were 
inflicted, that, as the Scriptures express it, " all the people of 
the earth might know the hand of the Lord, and might fear his 
name forever " (Josh. iv. 24) . 

And almost two thousand years ago, Christ left it in solemn 
injunction to his disciples, " Go ye into all the world, and 
preach the gospel to every creature." Surely, then, whoever 
else may be to blame that the revelations of God are not more 



NEED OF A REVELATION. 67 

widely diffused, he is abundantly clear in this matter. No 
reasonable objection can be sustained against him. • 

I conclude with a .single remark. If a revelation from God 
is so needful for us, as we have seen, then we should regard 
with gratitude and favor the evidences in support of the divine 
authority and inspiration of the Bible. Among all the pretended 
revelations now before the world, the Christian Scriptures alone 
present claims that are at all worthy of consideration. If the 
Bible is not from God, then no revelation has been made from 
God to men. We are literally shut up to this conclusion. It 
is this, or nothing. Now, this consideration should not lead us 
to accept the Bible without examination ; but it should lead us 
to look favorably into its evidences ; to search them with dili- 
gence and candor ; and, if their validity and sufficiency can be 
made to appear, to accept the needed blessing with all thank- 
fulness, and give diligent heed to it as to a light in a dark 
place. 



68 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUEE V. 

THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 

The word canon, signifying rule, is • appropriately applied to 
the Sacred Scriptures, because these constitute the rule of faith 
and life to the believer. The canonical Scriptures include those 
inspired books which go to constitute the entire canon or rule. 
Our present object will be to ascertain, if possible, what th'ese 
canonical books are, and to distinguish them from certain other 
books, which are termed apocryphal. 

Let it be premised here, that the questions on which we now 
enter belong appropriately to Christians. Until the infidel will 
admit that there are inspired boohs, and thus virtually ceases 
from his infidelity, he can have no particular interest in the 
inquiry, what and how many inspired books there are. 

We begin with the canon of the Old Testament. This was 
not settled at once, as its books were not all written at once. 
The books of Moses were written first ; and these, when finished, 
were carefully deposited in the side of the ark of the covenant, 
in the most holy place (Deut. xxxi. 24-26). It seems that the 
book of Joshua was annexed to the Pentateuch, and laid up 
with it ; for it is said that " Joshua wrote these words in the 
book of the law of God" (Josh. xxiv. 26). When other books 
were added by Samuel and his successors, it is likely that their 
inspired authors would be careful to deposit copies of them in 
the sanctuary. In the destruction of the temple by Nebuchad- 
nezzar, these sacred autographs, in all probability, perished, 
although copies of them were in circulation among the priests 
and people, and were preserved. 

After the return from Babylon, the sacred books were col- 
lated, edited, and published in a volume, under the direction 



THE CANON OF SCEIPTURE. 69 

of Ezra, an inspired priest. To him, therefore, more than to 
any other individual, belongs the honor of settling the canon of 
the Old Testament. 

Some parts of the Old Testament, however, were added sub- 
sequent to the days of Ezra. This was true of the prophecy of 
Malachi, of the books of Nehemiah and Esther, and of at least 
some part of the books of Chronicles. In the book of Nehemiah, 
mention is made of the high priest Jaddua, and of Darius Codo- 
manus, king of Persia, both of whom lived a century after the 
time of Ezra (Neh. xii. 22). Also in the third chapter of the 
first book of Chronicles, the genealogy of the. descendants of 
Zerubbabel is carried down, perhaps to the time of Alexander 
the- Great. The conclusion, therefore, is, that Ezra collected 
and arranged all the sacred books which belonged to the canon 
before his time ; and that after him, a succession of pious and 
learned men — some of them inspired men — continued to pay 
attention to the canon, until the whole was completed. 

Such is the probable history of the canon of the Old Testa- 
ment. Two questions now arise in view of it ; and they are 
the only questions which, as Christians, we are entitled to ask. 
First, did the Old Testament, as it existed in the days of our 
Saviour, receive his sanction? Was it regarded by him as the 
Word of God? Secondly, did the Old Testament, which our 
Saviour received and sanctioned, contain the same books with 
ours ? 

That our Saviour received and sanctioned what ■ he usually 
called the Scriptures, regarding them as the Word of God, and 
as of binding authority, no reader of the Gospels can possibly 
doubt. It was these out of which he reasoned ; to these he con- 
stantly appealed ; it was these which he opened and explained 
to his followers ; it was by these that he silenced and confounded 
his adversaries. " The Scriptures," he said, " cannot be broken." 
"The Scriptures must be fulfilled." "Search the Scriptures; 
for in them ye think ye have eternal life." " Blessed are they 
that hear the Word of God, and keep it." Our Saviour speaks 
of the sacred writings, with winch he was familiar, under the 
threefold division of "the law, the prophets, and the psalms," 
and says that all things written in them concerning him must 



70 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

be fulfilled (Luke xxiv. 44) . It is a fact, then, that our Saviour 
did sanction, in the most explicit terms, a class of writings 
held sacred among the Jews, speaking of them as the Word 
of God, and declaring -that all things written in them must be 
fulfilled. 

We come now to our second question — Were the Scriptures 
which the Saviour thus confirmed and sanctioned, the same as 
our Old Testament? In other words, did his Old Testament 
and ours agree ? Were the books the same ? If it can be shown 
that they were the same, I insist that, as Christians, we have no 
more questions to ask. Our Saviour sanctioned the canon, as 
he had it ; and he equally gives his sanction to ours, if it can be 
shown that his and ours agree. 

That the books of the Old Testament are the same now that 
they were in the days of Christ and the apostles, will be evident 
from the following considerations : 

1. The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which 
was made long before the birth of Christ, contains all the present 
canonical books. Certain apocryphal writings have since been 
bound up with the Septuagint, but there is no reason to think 
that they made any part of it in the days of our Saviour. 

2. Josephus, who was contemporary with some of the apostles, 
gives an account of the sacred books of the Jews in his time ; 
and it is evident from his description of them, that they were 
the same as-ours. He speaks, indeed, of but twenty-two books ; 
but this is to be accounted for from a device of the rabbins to 
make the number of books correspond exactly with the number 
of Hebrew letters. To effect this purpose, they joined together 
several of the books ; as Judges and Euth, Ezra and Nehemiah, 
Jeremiah and the Lamentations, and all the minor prophets. 
Josephus gives the following account of the authors and con- 
tents of the several books : " Five of them proceed from Moses. 
These include the laws, and an account of the creation of man, 
extending to the time of Moses' death, — a period of almost three 
thousand years. From the death of Moses to that of Artaxerxes, 
king of Persia, the prophets who succeeded Moses committed 
to writing, in thirteen books, what was done in their day. The 
remaining four books contain hymns to God, and instructions 



THE CANON OF SCRIPTUEE. 71 

of life for man." 1 It will be seen that this division of the books 
corresponds precisely to that mentioned by our Saviour, — 
"the laws, the prophets, and the psalms." It agrees also with 
the Old Testament of the present day. 

3. Several of the Christian Fathers, as Melito, Origen, Ath- 
anasius, Cyril, Augustine, Jerome, andRuffin, furnish catalogues 
of the books of the Old Testament ; and although there are 
slight variations in these catalogues, it is certain from them that 
the canon was settled in those early times, and has undergone 
no alteration since. 

4. Since the time of Christ, the Jews and Christians have 
been spies upon each other ; so that if either party were dis- 
posed to disturb the canon of the Old Testament, it would be 
impossible to effect it without instant exposure. 

From all these considerations we may be sure that the Old 
Testament is the same now that it was in the time of Christ ; 
and since he received and sanctioned it, as it then was, we have 
his sanction for it as it now is. And this, as I have said, is 
enough for Christians. We cannot be in fault, in holding and 
regarding the Old Testament Scriptures as they were regarded 
by our blessed Lord. 

This argument is not only conclusive upon Christians, but it 
is comprehensive. It settles the authority, not only of the Old 
Testament as a whole, but of each and every book comprised in 
that whole. We have no occasion now to prove the canonical 
authority of any particular book, as, for example, the Canticles, 
or the book of Esther, any further than to show that it belonged 
to the canon in the time of Christ, and as such received his 
divine approval. 

In connection with our English Bibles, we frequently find a 
class of apocryphal books; and the question arises, Why are 
not these of canonical authority ? Why should they not be re- 
ceived by us, as they are by the Church of Eome ? In reply to 
this I observe : 

1. That these books are not found in the Hebrew Bible. 
They were written originally, not in Hebrew, but in Greek, — 
a language which was not common among the Jews, perhaps 

1 Against Apion, Book i. sect. 8. 



72 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

not known among them, until long after the canon of the Old 
Testament was closed. 

2. These apocryphal books have never been received into 
the sacred canon of the Jews. They are ancient Jewish writ- 
ings, but have never been regarded by that people as inspired. 
In this the ancient and modern Jews are agreed. 

3. The apocryphal books are never quoted or referred to in 
the New Testament as possessing any divine authority. Indeed, 
it does not appear that they are quoted at all. 

4. These books were not received as canonical by the Chris- 
tian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal. In 
the various catalogues of the Fathers, mention is made of all 
the received books of the Old Testament, while either nothing 
•is said of the apocryphal books, or they are referred to as having 
no authority. Indeed, until the time of the Council of Trent, 
near the middle of the sixteenth century, the most learned and 
judicious popish writers adhere to -the opinion of the ancient 
Fathers, and declare against the canonical authority of the apoc- 
ryphal books. It was by the Council of Trent that these books 
^ere first adopted and canonized in the Eoman Church. But — 

5. If there was no other argument against the apocryphal 
books, the internal evidence would be decisive. They contain 
many things which are fabulous, absurd, and incredible. They 
inculcate false doctrine, and a false and unchristian morality. 
In the second of the Maccabees we read : " It is a holy and 
wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be 
loosed from their sins" (chap. xii. 43, 45). The writer of the 
same book justifies and commends suicide : " When he was 
ready to be taken, he fell upon his own sword, choosing to die 
nobly, rather than fall into the hands of the wicked " (chap, 
xiv. 41, 42). In several places in the Apocrypha, atonement 
and justification are represented as being secured by works. 
w Whoso honoreth his father, maketh an atonement for his 
sins" (Ecc. iii. 3) : "Alms doth deliver from death, and shall 
purge away all sin" (Tobit xii. 9). 

6. The writer of the Maccabees disclaims inspiration, — at 
least such inspiration as would preserve him from error. " I 
will here make an end of my narrative. If I have done well, 



THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 73 

it is what I desired ;. but if slenderly and meanly, it is what I 
could attain unto" (2 Mac. xv. 38). 

In judging of these apocryphal books, I would award them 
all the praise to which they can be regarded as entitled. They 
possess a high value, considered as ancient Jewish writings, 
which not only throw light upon the phraseology of Scripture, 
and upon the history and manners of the East, but exhibit the 
state of the Jewish nation at a very interesting and critical 
period of its history. Still, they have no claim to be admitted 
into the sacred canon, or to be regarded as of divine authority. 
The English liturgy (very improperly, as it seems to me) en- 
joins the reading of certain portions of these books in the 
churches, and it is on this account, probably, that we so often 
find them enclosed within the covers of our Bibles. 

We come now to consider the canon of the New Testament. 
This, like that of the Old, seems not to have been settled at 
once. The Apostle Peter was acquainted with the Epistles of 
Paul, and places them on a level with " the other scriptures ;" 
that is, with the scriptures of the Old Testament (2 Pet. iii. 
16) . Eusebius tells us that John was acquainted with the other 
three Gospels, gave them his approbation, and wrote his own as 
a supplement to them, which accords entirely with the contents 
of John's Gospel. 1 This Gospel is, in fact, a supplement to the 
other three, whether so designed by the writer or not. In all 
probability, John was acquainted with most of the other books 
of the New Testament, as their authority seems to have been 
established soon after his death. Their authority was not estab- 
lished, however (as infidels have pretended) , by any decree of 
council, or by any formal act of the whole church, but by the 
testimony of competent witnesses, and by the various evidences 
presented in behalf of the received books, that they really were 
the works of inspired men, and carried with them the authority 
of God. The Council of Laodicea, which assembled A. D. 364, 
and by which it has been pretended that the canon of the New 
Testament was established, and that, too, by one majority, 
neither did, nor attempted, any such thing. The canon was just 
as well settled before that council, and had been for more than a 

1 Ecc. Hist. Lib. iii. cap. 24. 
10 



74 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

hundred years, as it was afterwards. This council do, indeed, 
publish a catalogue of received books — such as had been 
received, and were expected to be ; but their decree was not 
so much legislative as declaratory, setting forth what was, and 
had been, the sense of the church in regard to this important 
matter. 

In settling the canon of the New Testament, the early Fathers 
of the church seem to have proceeded with great deliberation 
and care. They did not receive everything that was thrown 
out upon the world under the name of apostolical men. The 
claims of every book were canvassed, and nothing was admitted 
but upon the fullest investigation. It was owing to this cir- 
cumstance that doubts were, for a time, entertained with regard 
to some of the received books ; as, for example, the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, the second Epistle of Peter, the two short Epis- 
tles of John, and the Revelation. We know why doubts were 
entertained respecting these books, and hoiv they were removed. 
We have the means of judging in regard to this matter, almost 
as well as the Fathers themselves, so careful were they to put 
us in possession of all material facts pertaining to the subject. 

The general considerations which go to satisfy us as to the 
canonical authority of the received books of the New Testa- 
ment, are the following : 

1. The catalogues of the early Fathers, — as Origen, Euse- 
bius, and others, — in which are found the names of most, or 
all, of these books. 

2. These books are continually quoted in the writings of the 
Fathers, and quoted as of divine authority. 

3. The books of which we speak were read in the primitive 
churches, as constituting a part of the inspired Word of God. 

4. The books of the New Testament were early translated into 
other languages, particularly the Syriac and the Latin, in which 
versions the books agree substantially with our own. 

5. In addition to this mass of evidence in favor of the books 
of the New Testament collectively, we have an abundance of 
testimony, in the writings of the Fathers, to each and every book 
in particular. We are told which books are of unquestioned 
authority, and which not ; and in regard to those whose authority 



THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. To 

was for a time doubted, we are told where these doubts were 
entertained, and by whom, and of the fact that all doubt was at 
length removed, and the authority of the books established. 

In settling, as they were called to do, the canon of the New 
Testament, the early Fathers and churches seem to have pro- 
ceeded on the following sound and reasonable principles : 

1. They would admit such books, and such only, as could be 
proved to have been written by the apostles themselves, or by 
their immediate attendants, and under their inspection. Thus 
the gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles,- 
were received into the canon, because, though not written by 
apostles, they were written by their attendants (the attendants 
of Peter and Paul) , and undoubtedly received their sanction. 

2. Kegard was also had to the contents of the books received. 
Anything occurring in a particular book, which was contrary to 
what the apostles taught, or to the rules which they established, 
would be deemed a sufficient reason for rejecting the book. 

3. In deciding upon the claims of a book, authority and ex- 
ample were allowed to have due influence. With those who had 
not opportunity of personal knowledge and examination as to 
the evidence for or against any particular book, the judgment 
and practice of other churches and individuals had (as it should 
have had) much weight. 

It was on principles such as these, and after much care and 
deliberation, that the canon of the New Testament was finally 
settled. It was settled during the first half of the second cen- 
tury, within fifty years of the death of the Apostle John. 

During the first four centuries of the Christian era, many spu- 
rious books were thrown out upon the world, bearing the names 
of apostles, or of apostolical men, and claiming to possess a 
divine authority. A portion of these has been published in a 
volume, under the title of " Apocryphal Books of the New Tes- 
tament." But the evidence against them, or such of them as. 
lay any claim to divine inspiration, is conclusive. 

1. They are not acknowledged or quoted, as of any authority,. 
by the early Christian Fathers. Indeed, the most of them are 
not quoted at all, as they had no existence before the third 
century. 



76 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

2. They are not quoted by the earliest enemies of Christianity, 
as they certainly would have been had they been extant, and 
been generally received by Christians. 

3. These apocryphal books contradict, in many points, the 
doctrine and practice of the apostles. 

4/ Things are often mentioned or referred to in them which 
occurred much later than the time in which the books purport 
to have been written. 

5. They contain direct contradictions of authentic history, 
both sacred and profane. 

6. The style and manner of the apocryphal books is exceed- 
ingly diverse from, and inferior to, that of the apostolical writ- 
ings. 

7. These books contain many things ludicrous, frivolous, and 
absurd, and in not a few instances, palpable falsehoods. Thus, 
in one of the pretended epistles of Seneca to Paul, the Emperor 
Nero is said to have been surprised and delighted with Paul's 
epistles to the churches. 

In addition to the apocryphal writings, a pretence has been 
confidently made to traditionary revelations. Such a pretence 
was set up by the Pharisees in the days of our Saviour. Such 
an one is also made by the Roman Church at this day. With 
regard to the traditions of the Pharisees, it is enough to say 
that they were expressly abrogated and condemned by Christ 
himself (Mark vii. 8-12). And for the same reasons that our 
Saviour rejected the traditions of the Pharisees, he would 
certainly reject those of the Romanists. It may be said of the 
latter, as truly as of the former, that they contradict and make 
void the law of God by their traditions. 

The inquiry is pertinent here, whether any book belonging to 
the canon of Scripture, or properly entitled to belong to it, has 
ever been lost. On this question I have two remarks to offer : 

1. If any of these books have been lost, their loss does not 
detract from the value or the authority of those which remain. 
If any have been lost out of the canon, let us prize the more 
highly, and receive with the greater thankfulness, those which 
are left. But : — 

2. There is no sufficient reason for supposing that any of the 



THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. 77 

canonical books of Scripture have been lost. We can hardly 
reconcile it with our ideas of the wisdom and the goodness of 
God, that he should suffer such an event to take place ; nor is it 
likely that he has. Mention is indeed made in the Old Testa- 
ment of certain books which are no longer extant, such as "The 
book of Jasher" (Josh. x. 14) and "The book of the Wars of 
the Lord" (Numb. xxi. 14). But there is no evidence that 
either of these was ever included in the Jewish canon, or was 
entitled to be there. And the same remark may be made re- 
specting "The book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel," 
so often referred to in the first book of the Kings. This was not 
the book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles, but the 
authorized records of the kingdom of Israel, made and kept by 
the king's scribes. It was the register of what we would call 
the Secretary of State. The three thousand proverbs of Solo- 
mon, arid his songs, which were one thousand and five, together 
with his works on botany and natural history, would, no doubt, 
be very entertaining, if we had authentic copies of them ; but 
there is no evidence that these works ever claimed inspiration, 
or were admitted into the sacred canon of the Jews. 

The only books of the New Testament which have been ac- 
counted as lost, are an Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, 
supposed to precede what we are accustomed to regard as his 
first epistle, aud his Epistle to the Laodiceans. (See Col. iv. 
16.) But the epistle of which Paul speaks in 1 Cor. v. 9, was 
undoubtedly the very epistle which he was then writing. The 
passage is badly translated in our version. "Eygacpa ^%v Ip. rrj 
inKTTobf; not "I wrote unto you in an epistle," but "I have writ- 
ten unto you in the epistle ;" that is, in this epistle, — the very 
writing which I now send. 

The Epistle to the Laodiceans has been justly regarded as no 
other than the Epistle .to the Ephesjans. As Ephesus was the 
chief city of proconsular Asia, this epistle may have been 
designed for all the churches in the province ; among which 
was the church of the Laodiceans. This is the only supposition 
which is not embarrassed with formidable difficulties. There 
was, indeed, an Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans extant in the 



78 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

fifth century ; but it was manifestly a forgery, and never had a 
place in the sacred canon. 

It is objected by Romanists, when told that the canonical 
Scriptures are the only rule of faith, that we receive these 
Scriptures on the authority of the church; and, consequently, 
the authority of the church must be at least paramount to that^ 
of Scripture. But in what sense can it be said that we receive 
our Scriptures on the authority of the church ? Did the whole 
church ever come together in a body, or in a general council, 
and decide, authoritatively, what books should be received, and 
what rejected? This has been often said by infidels ; and, that 
after long and angry debate, the .decision was made in favor of 
the received books by a majority of one. But when and where 
was this general council held ? Where was this most important 
ecclesiastical action had? I answer, nowhere. The whole story 
is a fabrication. Some small councils, as late as the third or 
fourth centuries, did record in their minutes what books were 
received in the churches, without pretending to any authority to 
legislate in the case. 

As before remarked, we judge of the claims of our sacred 
books, according to the evidence, external and internal, in their 
favor ; just as we would in respect to any other ancient writ- 
ings. We receive them not at all on the authority of the 
church, in any such sense as the Eomanists pretend. 

In order to make good his objection, the Romanist must show 
two things : First, that the whole primitive church was Roman 
Catholic, and, secondly, that by some general and decisive ac- 
tion of the whole primitive church, the canon of Scripture was 
settled. But neither of these points can he ever prove, for 
neither has the shadow of truth in its favor. 



AUTHENTICITY OF SCErPTCEE. 



LECTURE YI. 

AUTHENTICITY OB GENUINENESS OF SCKIPTTTRE. 

Having established the canonical authority of those books, 
and those only, which go to constitute our Bible, I proceed next 
to inquire as to their authenticity or genuineness. I use these 
words in much the same sense, as being opposed to that which 
is sjjurious or counterfeit. Thr questions to be considered are 
such as these : Were the seve :d books of 3c vptu t w itten.at 
the times and pla e& which hi ve been commonly supposed? Are 
they the ge nine _ eductions of those men whose names they 
bear, and to wfi :; :. in general, they have been attribute 

The subject opened by these questions, it will be seen, is a 
wide one, — wide enough to occupy voliunes. ^ll I shall at- 
tempt will be to present some general considerations, going to 
show the authenticity n genuineness of our sacred writinors. 

1. There is no real evidence against their authenticity. 
There are certain marks by which critics are accustomed to 
detect spuri: ;- writings, and by which, in ordinary cases, 
they may be easily and surely detected. For example, says 
MiehaeTh. "We think ~e have reason to hesitate about the 
authenticity of a work, when serious doubts hare been raised, 
from its firs: appearance, whether it proceeded from the author 
to whom it is ascribed ; when the immediate friends of the 
alleged author, who were I sst able to decide upon the sub;-.:. 
denied it to be his ; when a long series of years has elapsed, 
?r his death, in which the book was unknown, and in which 
it must una" have been referred to had it been in exist- 

ence ; when the style is different from that of his other works, 
or, if none remain, from what might have been reasonably 
expected : ate are recorded, or referred to, which hap- 

pened later than the time of the supposed author; when opin- 



80 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ions are advanced which are contrary to those which he is known 
to have received ; when, in short, the whole is incongruous to 
the reputed author, and to the age and country in which he 
lived." 

Now, it is remarkable that not one of these marks of spuri- 
ousness — so reasonable in themselves — is applicable to our 
sacred books. So far from this, the opposite is specifically 
true of them in nearly every instance ; a circumstance which, 
of itself, goes far toward establishing their authenticity. 

There are, indeed, passages in some of our sacred books, par- 
ticularly in those ascribed to Moses, which Moses could not 
have written, but must have been added by Samuel, or Ezra, or 
some other editor or transcriber. 1 But this is no evidence that 
Moses was not properly the author of the books. Who doubts 
that Homer was the author of the poems which bear his name ? 
And yet it is indubitable that they have undergone some changes 
since they came from his hand. 

2. We have stronger reasons for believing in the authenticity 
of our sacred books than we have for holding the same opinion 
with regard to any other ancient books or writings. Let the 
evidence be collected in favor of the authenticity of any of the 
distinguished works of the ancients ; for example, the Orations 
of Cicero, or the Odes of Horace, or the ^Eneid of Yirgil; and 
I will undertake to present stronger evidence in support of the 
authenticity of almost any of our sacred books. 

To begin with the books of the New Testament. We cer- 
tainly know, from a great variety of historical evidence, that 
these books were in existence near the time when they purport 
to have been written. They are not only referred to, but ex- 
pressly spoken of, and largely quoted, by the writers of that 
period. We know, too, that they were then attributed, both 
by friends and enemies, and have all along been attributed, to 
the individuals whose names they bear. 

The books of the Old Testament were certainly in existence 
when those of the New were written, and had been for ages pre- 
vious. They had been collected into a volume, and translated 

1 Compare Gen. xiv. 14 with Jud. xviii. 29. See Gen. xxxvi. 31 ; Ex. xvi. 35, 36 ; 
Deut. iii. 14. 



AUTHENTICITY OF SCRIPTURE. 81 

into Greek, more than two centuries before the birth of Christ. 
At the time of their translation, they were regarded as very 
ancient writings. The primitive Christians received these 
books from the Jews, all of whom, both ancient and modern, 
unite in ascribing them to those holy and venerable men to whom 
they are now respectively attributed. 

The early Christians had the best opportunities for testing 
the authenticity of the books they received. We know, too, 
that they were exceedingly cautious in this matter, looking well 
into the evidence of things, sifting it to the bottom, doubting 
where doubts could be reasonably entertained, and rejecting 
whatever was found to lack sufficient proof; and it should seem 
that the grounds on which they satisfied themselves ought to be 
sufficient to satisfy us. 

On the whole, I have no doubt that we have stronger proof 
of the authenticity of our sacred books than we have of the 
authenticity of perhaps any other sacred writings. And if the 
Jesuit Harduin was deservedly scouted, who denied the authen- 
ticity of the Greek and Roman classics, ascribing them to the 
monks of the middle ages, much more should modern infidels 
be, scouted, who call in question the authenticity of the Old and 
New Testaments. 

3. If our sacred books are not the productions of those whose 
names they bear, then they axe forgeries. But forged when? 
And by whom? Who can give any probable, or even plausi- 
ble, answer to either of these questions? 

And if these books were forged, how are we to account for 
their original reception? Would the Jews, for example, have 
received their laws, purporting to have been given by Moses, 
from any hand but that of Moses? Or would the primitive 
Christians have received their sacred books from any other 
hands than those of the apostles and evangelists ? They promptly 
rejected everything which was attempted to be palmed upon 
them from other hands ; and they would have rejected the books 
of the New Testament, had they not been fully satisfied as to 
their genuineness. * 

Besides : it is evident that the sacred writers were good men. 
They were, so far as we can gather, holy men; and the tendency 
11 



82 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

of their writings is to discountenance all sin, and to promote 
holiness of heart and life. But if the books are not authentic, 
then the writers were forgers, imposters, liars. And we are 
presented with the strange anomaly of good forgers ! virtuous 
impostors ! holy liars ! And with the anomaly of books, the 
whole tendency of which is to discountenance and condemn 
every species of deception, which, at the same time, are the 
productions of the most arrant deceivers ! 

4. In proof of the authenticity of our sacred books, we have 
the testimony of ancient heathens and heretics. Among the 
ancient heathen, who wrote against Christianity, and whose 
writings have, in part, come down to us, were Celsus, a philos- 
opher of the second century, and Porphyry of the third, and 
the Emperor Julian, once a professed Christian, but afterwards 
a bitter opposer of the truth. Celsus, who wrote within sixty 
years of the apostolic age, so far from denying the authenticity 
of the Gospels, insists that they are authentic, — the works of 
the personal friends and followers of the Nazarene ; and he 
undertakes to refute the Christians out of their own acknowl- 
edged books. He quotes freely from all parts of the Bible, 
speaking of it as a collection of writings which the Christians 
of that day regarded as of the highest authority. 1 The same 
may be said of Porphyry and Julian ; though we know less of 
the character of their writings, as fewer fragments of them re- 
main. The infidels of that day had no thought of denying the 
authenticity of our sacred books. They rather assumed their 
authenticity, and argued from it in opposition to their truth. 

The church was early infested with heretics, who denied the 
doctrines of the gospel, and were interested to get rid of those 
parts of Scripture in which these doctrines are most plainly in- 
culcated. Such were Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nazarenes. 
These all denied the apostleship of Paul, and rejected his epistles 
as constituting any part of Sacred Scripture. Still, they did 
not doubt the authenticity of these epistles. They admitted 
that Paul wrote them with his own hand. In the same way, 
and for the same reason, they rejected the Gospels of Mark, 
Luke, and John ; receiving only a corrupted copy of the Gospel 

1 See Lit. and Theol. Review, Vol. iv. pp. 218, 584. 



AUTHENTICITY OF SCRIPTURE. 83 

of Matthew. Still, they did not deny the authenticity of the 
three rejected Gospels, but discarded them on other grounds. 
They disliked their contents, and could not well bring them 
into a conformity with their views. 

5. The style of our sacred boohs may be justly appealed to 
as evidence of their authenticity. It is suited, in every case, to 
the age and circumstances of the reputed writer. The style of 
Moses is just what we might expect from Moses. The style of 
the prophets, who wrote during the captivity, and after it, is 
different, but equally characteristic. TTe have here, as we 
might expect, an infusion of foreign words. The style of the 
Gospels — Greek, with Hebrew and Syriac idioms — proves 
that they must have been written by Jews, and written within 
the first century after Christ. They could not veil have been 
written, in their peculiar style and manner, either earlier or 
later. The style of Paul is very peculiar : and yet it is just 
such a style as a person educated after the manner of Paid, and 
possessing his peculiar temperament, and pursuing the course 
of life he did, might be expected to employ. And the same 
may be said of the style of John. This is so very peculiar as 
to fasten upon him the authorship of all those scriptures which 
bear his name. 

The characteristic differences of style among the Writers of 
our sacred books prove, to a certainty, that they were not the 
work of one person, but of many : so that if they are forgeries, 
we must suppose a long succession of forgers, all strangely 
agreeing in one design, — a design most unaccountable for such 
persons to propose, or to be agreed in. 

The style, too, we insist, is not one which an impostor would 
be likely to assume. There is a frankness, an openness, a 
straightforwardness about it, which a company of deceivers 
could not well counterfeit. There is a running out into the 
mention of numerous incidental things, which an impostor 
would not care or dare to notice. 

6. The authenticity of our sacred books is established by 
their frequent and accurate allusions to contemporaneous events. 
The allusion in the books of Moses to various historical events 
proves that these books must have been written about the time 



84 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

of Moses. The knowledge of a later writer would not have 
been sufficiently minute and accurate. And the same may be 
said of the allusions, generally, in the other books of the Bible. 
These are numerous, particular, evidently undesigned, and yet 
(so far as can be gathered from other sources) entirely accu- 
rate. 1 Modern investigations, instead of invalidating, are con- 
tinually going to confirm the accuracy of the Scripture allusions. 

7. The different books of Scripture go to confirm the authen- 
ticity one of another. For example, it is claimed that the Old 
Testament preceded in point of time, and by a long space, the 
New. And is it not perfectly evident, from a comparison of 
the two parts of the Bible, that this was the case? How often 
do the writers of the New Testament refer to the Old, speaking 
of it, and quoting from it, as a collection of ancient writings 
which were regarded as of the highest "authority ! How often 
are the rights and institutions of the Old Testament remarked 
upon and explained in the New, in a way to render it perfectly 
certain that the former must have long preceded the latter ! 

Again : it is claimed that the books of Moses were the first 
written of any part of the Old Testament ; and that these books 
were in existence long anterior to the most of those which fol- 
lowed. And who, that reads attentively the several parts of the 
Old Testament,, can doubt as to the truth of this ? To mention 
but a single example : The allusions all through the Old Testa- 
ment (excepting the Pentateuch) to the different parts of the 
Jewish law, and more especially to the ritual parts, are so fre- 
quent, and so manifestly incidental, as to prove that the law 
must have been in existence, and in binding force, when the 
other books were written. 

Still again : it is claimed that a part of the prophets were 
contemporary with the kings of Judah and Israel ; that others 
wrote during the captivity ; and still others after the captivity. 
Now let any intelligent, fair-minded person compare the histor- 
ical and prophetical books, to see whether the incidental state- 
ments and allusions, one way and the other, go to confirm, or 
to invalidate, this claim ; and we are sure he can come to but 
one conclusion. He will see and say that Isaiah and Hezekiah, 

i See Home's Introduction, Vol. i. Sec. 2. 



AUTHENTICITY OF SCEIPTURE. 85 

that Jeremiah and Zedekiah, that Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, 
that Haggai and Zerubbabel, must have lived and flourished 
together. 

I mention but another example, and that from the New Tes- 
tament. It is claimed that the same Paul whose history is given 
in the Acts, is the author of the epistles which bear his name ; 
and that most of these epistles were written while this history 
was in progress. We are entitled, therefore, to compare the 
Acts and the epistles, and see if this claim is founded in truth. 
This work, I hardly need say, has been done to our hand, by 
Dr. Paley, in his admirable little work, entitled Hone Paulinas. 
And no candid person can read that book and not be satisfied. 
In short, a close comparison of the different parts of the Bible 
will not fail to convince any person that they are mutually con- 
sistent, and that they establish the authenticity one of another. 

8. The evidence in favor of the authenticity of the Scriptures 
is continually increasing. And this, if it be true, is certainly a 
very interesting fact. As there is nothing in the Bible to flatter 
the pride of man, or inflate his vanity, or gratify his sensual 
indulgence, or give him security in a course of sin, but all its 
instructions are of a directly opposite tendency, it need not sur- 
prise us that, with mankind generally, the Bible is a dreaded 
and a hated book. For almost two thousand years it has been 
a prime object with wicked men, by sneers and reproaches, by 
exciting suspicions and creating doubts, if possible to get rid of 
the Bible. And yet all this while it has been spread fearlessly 
open before the world, inviting its scrutiny, inviting research ; 
and I but speak the sentiment of the best scholars of the age, 
when I say that the evidences of its authenticity, so far from 
being invalidated, have been constantly gaining strength. The 
more the state, the history, the customs, arts, and languages of 
the ancient world are studied ; the more the ancient manu- 
scripts, versions, and quotations are examined; the more the 
monuments and inscriptions of remote antiquity are brought to 
light, the more evident it becomes that the several books of 
Scripture have been ascribed to the right authors, and that they 
must have been written at the remote periods, and in the places, 
which have been commonly supposed. Difficulties which once 



86 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

embarrassed the subject have been removed, objections have 
been obviated, and the force of the argument in support of the 
authenticity or genuineness of the Scriptures is continually 
gaining strength. 

9. I only add, further, that if the books of the Bible are true, 
they certainly are authentic. To prove that they are true, will 
be my object in a future Lecture. All I here say is, that their 
truth, if it can be established, necessarily involves their authen- 
ticity ; because the Scriptures settle, in most instances, the 
question of authorship, and fix the times and places of the writ- 
ing of the books. Thus it is repeatedly said that Moses wrote 
the books of the law ; and that Joshua wrote the book which 
bears his name ; that David wrote most of the Psalms, and Sol- 
omon the Proverbs, and the Prophets the books ascribed to 
them; and Paul, and Peter, and James, and Jude, wrote their 
several epistles. Now, if the Scriptures are true, these decla- 
rations are true, and the question of authorship is settled. 

On the whole, Christians have much reason to be satisfied as 
to the authenticity or genuineness of the several books of the 
Bible. And this, it will be seen in the progress of the discus- 
sion, is an important step in the general question of evidences 
which go to establish the fact of a divine, supernatural revela- 
tion to the world. 



TJNCORRUPTEDNESS OF SCRIPTURE. 87 



LECTUEE VII. 

UNCORRUPTEDNESS OF SCRIPTURE. 

I endeavored to show in my last Lecture that the several 
books of Scripture have been ascribed to the "right authors, or 
that they are the genuine productions of those whose names they 
bear. It may be said, perhaps, that, allowing this to be true, 
still it does not follow that we are in possession of the real, orig- 
inal Scriptures. w They are ancient writings. They have come 
down to us through a long track of years, and through the hands 
of numerous transcribers. Through the dishonesty or incompe- 
tency of some of these, the books may have been essentially 
corrupted. By mistake or design, passages may have been 
added or omitted, till the Scriptures are no longer what -they 
once were. They may have been essentially changed." 

In reply to this, it is admitted that the books of Scripture 
have passed through the hands of many transcribers ; in conse- 
quence of which it is scarcely possible that there should not be 
slight variations. In printing successive editions of the Bible, 
it is not easy to avoid, entirely, mistakes and errors. But the 
difficulty of this was greatly increased in ancient times, when 
copies could be multiplied only through the slow efforts of the 
pen. 

.1 shall not undertake to show, therefore, that there are not 
various readings in the Bible ; that all the copies are just alike, 
and just as they were originally written. There certainly are 
various readings, and these are found to be considerably numer- 
ous. Nothing short of a constant miracle of superintendence 
could have prevented it. Still, I shall endeavor to show that a 
vast majority of these variations — indeed, almost the whole of 
them — are of very little importance, so far as concerns the 



88 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

sense ; that the Scriptures have not been essentially corrupted ; 
that, in all material points, we have them as God originally 
gave them to the world. It will be understood, of course, that 
we here speak of the Scriptures in the original languages, and 
as they stand in our commonly received editions. In approach- 
ing this subject, I observe — 

1. That no proof has ever been furnished, or can be, of essen- 
tial alterations in the contents of our sacred books. It is easy 
for those who are skeptically inclined to throw out suspicions 
and insinuations. It is easy to say, in general terms, that the 
Scriptures may have been essentially corrupted. But the world 
is not so much interested to know what may, or may not, have 
been done in this matter, as to know what actually has been done. 
Where is the proof of essential alterations ? Here is the Bible 
thrown wide open. Here are the hundreds and thousands of 
different copies, manuscripts, and versions. Let those who insist 
that the Scriptures have been mutilated and corrupted look into 
the matter for themselves. Let them investigate it to the bottom, 
and spread out the facts before the world. The burden of proof 
is on their hands, and let them produce it. We have no fears 
as to the result of careful and thorough investigation. Certainly, 
no proof has ever yet been furnished of essential alterations ; 
and it is equally certain that none can be. 

2. It is next to impossible that the Scriptures should have 
been essentially altered at any period, from the time of Moses 
to this day. The ancient Jews had the strongest motives for pre- 
serving their Scriptures uncorrupt. To say nothing of the ven- 
eration which they entertained for them, here were, the articles 
of their religious faith, and the laws of the land. Here were the 
original land titles to their earthly estates, and the charter of 
their heavenly inheritance. To mutilate and corrupt these 
sacred documents, even if they could do it, would be to unsettle 
everything, in respect both to this life and that which is to 
come. 

Besides : there were from the first different tribes in Israel, 
all alike interested, who would be sure to exercise a watchful 
care over each other. At a later period there were the two 
kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And when the kingdom of 



UNCORRUPTEDNESS OF SCRIPTURE. 89 

Israel was subverted, there sprang up different sects among the 
Jews. These all professed to receive the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures, or certain parts of them, and would be sure to guard with 
vigilance the sacred text. After the introduction of Christianity, 
the difficulty of any general corruption was still further increased. 
If the Jew made any considerable alteration,* the Christian would 
discover it; or, if the Christian attempted to do the same, the 
Jew would be sure to detect and expose him. 

Another difficulty in the way of any considerable alteration 
arose from the multiplication and wide diffusion of copies. It 
is supposed that the priests and Levites had copies of the law 
as early as the times of the Judges and the Kings ; since they 
were expressly required to instruct the people, and read to them 
the law on great public occasions (Deut. xxxi. 11). At a later 
period, after the dispersion of the Jews and the establishment 
of synagogues, copies of the Old Testament Scriptures were 
greatly multiplied. 

And the same may be said as to copies of the New Testa- 
ment. With the early and rapid diffusion of Christianity, these 
were translated into different languages, and carried into all 
parts of the earth. In view of these facts, we ask, How could 
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments ever have been 
essentially corrupted? To get all the copies together and muti- 
late all alike would be impossible ; and if only a few copies were 
altered, all the rest would remain unchanged, to bear a united 
testimony against them. 

3. We have another argument, a priori, to show that the 
Scriptures cannot have been essentially altered, growing out of 
the exceeding care which has been taken, both by Jews and 
Christians, in regard to them. The Jewish copyists were at 
some periods, excessively, I had almost said superstitiously, 
exact. They noted the verses where something was supposed 
to be forgotten, the words which they believed to be changed, 
and the letters which they regarded as superfluous. They 
ascertained the middle letter of the Pentateuch, the middle 
clause and letter of each book, and how many times each letter 
of the alphabet occurs in all the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus 
Aleph, they tell us, occurs 42,377 times; Beth, 32,218 times, 
12 v 



90 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

etc. I mention these facts to show the excessive care and par- 
ticularity of these ancient copyists, and how unlikely it is that 
any considerable change could occur under their hands. 

The same kind of care was not, indeed, exercised by the early 
Christians ; and yet they were, perhaps, equally studious and 
watchful. Origen, Jerome, and others of the Christian Fathers, 
gave much attention to the sacred text, and were unwearied in 
their efforts to preserve and present it pure. The Hexapla of 
Origen, in which six different versions of the Old Testament 
Scriptures were presented together, in separate columns, on the 
same page, was a monument, not only of his learning, but of his 
zeal and faithfulness in this important matter. But I need not 
dwell longer on a priori considerations. I remark, therefore— 

4. That this whole subject has been very thoroughly and 
satisfactorily investigated, and the number and character of the 
Various readings in our sacred books have been carefully noted. 
Not content to wait for the enemies of the Bible to prove that it 
has bein essentially corrupted, its friends have volunteered to 
prove a negative. They have shown, beyond all question, that 
it has not been corrupted. The more elaborate collators of the 
manuscripts of the Old Testament in modern times have been 
Kennicott and De Rossi. Dr. Kennicott examined six hundred 
and fifteen manuscripts ; and in addition to these, De Eossi col- 
lated seven hundred and thirty-one more, — making thirteen 
hundred and forty-six in all. 

The principal collators of the New Testament have been Eras- 
mus, the editors of the Complutensian and London Polyglots, 
Bishop Fell, Dr. Mill, Ktister, Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, 
Matthasi, and Schols. Griesbach examined three hundred and 
fifty-five manuscripts, besides ancient versions and quotations 
from the Fathers. In addition to these, Dr. Schols collated 
three hundred and thirty-one manuscripts ; making, with those 
before examined, six hundred and eighty-six. 

These statements show the exceeding diligence of distinguished 
Christian scholars in this important field of study and labor. 
The number of variations that have been discovered is, indeed, 
as might have been expected, very considerable. Some tell 
us of thirty thousand various readings ; and others of a still 



UNCORRUPTEDNESS OF SCRIPTURE, 91 

larger number. But then a vast majority of these — ninety- 
nine out of every hundred — are of no kind of importance, so 
far as concerns the sense. They respect merely a point, or a 
letter, or the spelling or collocation of some little word. Of 
how much importance would fit be in this sentence, " Honour the 
Lord with thy substance," whether the u were omitted or re- 
tained in the last syllable of the word honor 9 Yet this,' we are 
assured, would be quite as important as ninety-nine hundredths 
of the variations which have been discovered in the sacred text.- 

When Kennicott had finished his great work of collating He- 
brew manuscripts, he was asked by his sovereign, George III., 
what had been the result of his learned and laborious investiga- 
tions. He replied that he had. "found many variations, and 
some grammatical errors ; but not one which affected, in the 
smallest degree, any article of faith or 'practice.'''' 

The integrity as well as authenticity of the sacred text 
received strong confirmation from manuscripts which the late 
Dr. Buchanan brought with him from the East, in the early 
part of the present century. Among these was a Hebrew copy 
of the Pentateuch, found among the black Jews on the coast of 
Malabar; and a copy of the entire New Testament (with the 
exception of the Apocalypse) derived from the Syrian Christians 
on the same coast. Neither of these had been transcribed from 
any Western copy of the Scriptures, or had any connection 
whatever with the European churches. They came originally, 
to be sure, from the same divine source ; but they had passed 
down the stream of time in quite another channel. And yet, on 
examination, they were found to be, substantially, the same 
thing, — the same book, and the same contents. 

I have said that a large majority of the various readings found 
in the Scriptures make little or no alteration in the sense. 
This, however, is not the case with them all. There are a few 
changes, here and there, which seem to have been perpetrated 
by design, which were intended to affect the sense. Thus in 
Mark xiii. 32, "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man ; no, 
not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the 
Father ; " the words " neither the Son " are in some copies 
omitted. In Acts xx. 28, "Feed the church of God, which he 



92 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

hath purchased with his own blood ; " for the word God, some 
manuscripts read Lord. Another passage supposed to have been 
tampered with is 1 Tim. iii. 16 : " Great is the mystery of god- 
liness ; God was manifest in the flesh." In some copies this 
reads, " Great is the mystery of godliness ; he who was manifest 
in the flesh was justified in the Spirit," etc. 

Then there is the passage of the three heavenly witnesses, in 
1 John v. 7. In most of the ancient manuscripts this whole 
verse is omitted, and it really is a doubtful passage. The 
external evidence is against it ; though the internal has always 
seemed to me to predominate in its favor. I do not abandon 
the passage, but wait for further light. As at present informed, 
I should not feel justified in preaching from it, or in using it as 
a proof-text. 

It will be seen that the variations here noted all relate to the 
same general subject, — the trinity and the proper divinity of 
Christ. They were perpetrated, probably, during the Arian 
controversy, in the fourth and fifth centuries of the Christian 
era. I feel quite satisfied with the common reading of all the 
passages cite v d, except the last. 

There are a few passages in the Bible, like those above noticed, 
which seem to have been tampered with, at some period, by 
design. And yet there are but few — very few. Christians 
may well be satisfied, not only with the authenticity, but the 
integrity of the sacred text. In all important particulars, we 
have received it, as the sacred writers left it, without corruption 
or alteration. 



THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE. 93 



LECTUEE VIII. 

THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 

My sole object in this Lecture is to prove that the statements, 
the declarations of Scripture, are true. 

1. My first argument for the truth of Scripture will be drawn 
from the fact — already established — of their authenticity. 
Authentic histories, written and published under the same cir- 
cumstances with our Scriptures, may in general be presumed 
to contain the truth ; because, being circulated among contem- 
poraries who are well acquainted with the facts, if the statements 
are not true they can easily be confuted, and certainly will not 
be received. 

Moses published among his contemporaries an account of the 
deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, and of their journey- 
ings, their rebellions, and corrections in the wilderness. Would 
he have dared, under these circumstances, to publish statements 
which were not true, and which he might be sure, thousands of 
voices would instantly be raised to contradict? Or if Moses 
had had the effrontery to publish falsehoods to his contempora- 
ries, would they have had the stupidity to receive them? 

So the writers of the Gospels published among their contem- 
poraries, friends, and enemies, distinct accounts of the doctrines, 
the works, the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus. 
Would they have published, under such circumstances, what 
they knew was not true ; what every reader would at once say 
was not true ; and what their enemies, the Jews, would instantly 
seize upon and turn to the ruin of their cause ? Or, if they 
could have been so infatuated as to make such publications, 
would those around them have been so infatuated as to receive, 
read, and believe their books ? 



94 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Moses often appeals to the senses of those for whom he wrote. 
" Your eyes have seen all the great acts of the Lord, which he 
did" (Deut. xi. 7). The writers of the New Testament do the 
same. Now, admitting (what has been proved) the authenticity 
of these writings, could they possibly have been received if 
they had not been true ? Would not those into whose hands 
the writings first came have known whether their eyes had seen 
the things described ? And if they had not seen them, would 
they have received and believed the books ? 

There is another difficulty in the way of the reception of these 
books on any other supposition than that of their containing 
incontestable truth. I refer to the character of the statements, 
the representations which are there made. These are, many of 
them, so mortifying to human pride, so offensive and humili- 
ating to those to whom they were addressed, that they never 
would have been propagated or received if they had not been 
known to be true. What Israelite would ever have recorded 
such stories as those of Abraham's equivocation, Jacob's intrigue, 
Judah's incest, Aaron's calf, and David's adultery, had he not 
been constrained to it by the known fact that these things were 
true ? Or, if any one had been mad enough to publish untruths 
of this nature in the presence of contemporaneous witnesses, 
would they not have been instantly rejected, and the authors of 
them have been contemned and scorned ? How often are the 
Israelites reproved, reproached, denounced, and condemned, in 
different parts of the Old Testament, for their wickedness ! 
Now, would these same Israelites have received this Old Testa- 
ment, and clung to it even unto death, had they not been fully 
convinced that it was true ? 

The same reasoning may be applied to the humbling repre- 
sentations and doctrines of the New Testament. If these rep- 
resentations are true, and if those to whom they were first pub- 
lished knew they were true, then may we account for their being 
received. But on any other supposition, their reception is 
unaccountable. 

2. My second argument for the truth of Scripture will be 
drawn from the testimony of the early enemies of Christianity. 
Most of the leading facts recorded in the Ne,w Testament are 



THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE. t 95 

confirmed by Josephus, by the Talmuds, by Tacitus and Pliny, 
and by various ancient heathen authors. The testimony of 
Josephus, who was a Jew, and a contemporary with the apostles, 
is as follows: "About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if 
indeed we may call him a man ; for he performed marvellous 
things. He was an instructor of such as embraced the truth 
with pleasure. He made many converts, both among the Jews 
and Greeks. He was (by profession) Christ. And when Pilate, 
on the accusation of the principal men among us, condemned 
him to the cross, those who before entertained a respect for him 
continued still to do so, for he appeared to them alive again, on 
the third day ; the divine prophets having declared these and 
many other wonderful things concerning him. The sect of 
Christians, so named from him, subsist to this very time." 1 In 
this passage, Josephus, a professed and an earnest believer of 
the Jews' religion, testifies that Jesus lived at the very tims 
assigned to him by the sacred writers ; that he was a wise and 
wonderful man; that he performed many miracles, and had 
many followers ; that he was crucified under Pilate, and on the 
third day rose from the dead, according to the predictions of the 
prophets ; and that the sect of Christians, so named from him, 
remained long after their Master was taken from them. 

This passage from Josephus has been disputed, though, I 
think, without sufficient reason. But in other passages, which 
have never been disputed, Josephus speaks of the character and 
labors of John the Baptist ; of his being put to death by Herod ; 
of the martyrdom of the Apostle James ; and of the miseries 
which came upon the Jewish nation on this account. " These 
things happened unto them by way of revenging the death of 
James the Just, the brother of Jesus whom they call Christ ; for 
the Jews slew him, though a very just man." 2 

About the year of our Lord 65, commenced the terrible perse- 
cution of the Christians$at Rome, under Nero. This monster of 
wickedness, having set fire to Rome just for the sake of seeing 
it burn^ and wishing to avert the indignation of the people on 
that account, falsely charged the conflagration" upon the Chris- 

i Antiq., Book 18, Chap. iii. 

2 See Antiq., Book 18, Chap, v., and Book 20, Chap. ix. 



96 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

tians, and commenced putting them to death without measure 
or mercy. Tacitus, a contemporary historian, and a heathen, 
thus speaks of the Christians : " Christ, the founder of this sect, 
was executed in the reign of Tiberius, by the procurator, Pon- 
tius Piiate. The pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, 
burst forth again, not only in Judea, the birthplace of the evil, 
but at Eome also, where everything atrocious and base centres 
and is in repute." In this passage Tacitus bears witness to the 
fact that Jesus lived in Judea at the very time stated by the 
evangelists ; that he was put to death under Pontius Pilate ; and 
that, after his death, his followers became exceedingly numerous, 
not only in Judea, but at Eome. Further on in the same pas- 
sage he speaks of " a vast multitude of Christians " as having 
been cruelly tortured and put to death by Nero. 

About forty years after this (A. D. 105) there was a persecu- 
tion under the emperor Trajan. Pliny was at this time gov- 
ernor of Bythinia ; and such multitudes of Christians were 
brought before him for trial and punishment, that he knew not 
what to do with them, and wrote to the emperor for advice. 
His letter is too long to be inserted here ; but in it he describes 
the religion of the Christians, their meetings, their sacraments, 
their mode of worship, and bears testimony to their holy and 
blameless lives. He speaks of having put two Christian females 
to the torture ; " but nothing," says he, " could I collect from 
them, except a depraved and excessive superstition." Here, you 
see again, is the Christian religion, flourishing in great strength, 
and vast multitudes drawn to the profession of it, at the very 
commencement of the second century, or within seventy years 
after the death of Christ. 

It was only about sixty years after this that Celsus wrote his 
work against Christianity, — the first that was ever written 
against it of which we have any knowledge, — in which, as was 
remarked in a former Lecture, he admits the authenticity of the 
Christian Scriptures, and most of the facts which they inculcate, 
and undertakes to refute the Christians out of their own books. 

3 . I now turn to another argument for the truth of Christian- 
ity ; and this is drawn from the testimony of the apostles and 
evangelists. It was one of the objects for which the apostles 



THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE. 97 

were appointed, to be witnesses to the world of what things they 
had seen and heard ; and there can be no doubt that our faith 
as Christians rests very materially, though not wholly, on their 
testimony. It becomes us, therefore, to examine well their tes- 
timony, and see whether or not they are worthy to be believed. 
There are circumstances under which the evidence of testi- 
mony is as conclusive as any moral evidence can be. There are 
laws to which, if the testimony in any given case conforms, we 
cannot reasonably withhold our faith. The laws of valid testi- 
mony to which I refer are such as these : 

(1) There must be a competent number of witnesses. 

(2) These witnesses must have had the capacity and the means 
of forming a correct judgment. 

(3) They must be persons of unexceptionable moral character. 

(4) They must be disinterested. 

(5) Their testimony must be given in plain terms, and must 
be, on all essential points, a concurrent testimony. 

(6) It must be of such a nature that the witnesses, if they 
have falsified, are open to detection. 

(7) It must be, not contradicted, but (so far as might rea- 
sonably be expected) confirmed, by other evidence. 

(8) It must be followed up, on the part of the witnesses, by 
a correspondent, consistent course of action. 

Such are, in brief, the laws of valid testimony. Such are the 
conditions, the circumstances, under which the evidence of tes- 
timony becomes conclusive. 

I would not say that these laws of testimony are all of them 
of equal value, or that a testimony which does not conform to 
them all is, of course, to be rejected. But I do say that testi- 
mony which does conform to them all is, in every case, to be 
received. It is sufficient of itself to establish truth. It is such 
as the world receives and acts upon, without the least hesita- 
tion, in regard to all subjects. In short, it is incontestable and 
conclusive, and cannot be set aside but upon principles which, 
so far as respects the wide field of testimony, would introduce 
a universal skepticism. 

I am, aware that I use strong language here, and I will illus- 
trate the propriety of it by putting a strong case. The most 

13 



98 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

of us, probably, never saw the city of London. Still we do not 
doubt that there is, on the other side of the Atlantic, such a 
city, more than if we had seen it. The fact of its existence has 
become as certain to us, on the evidence of testimony, as though 
it rested on the evidence of sense. And now, if we reflect a 
moment, we shall perceive that the testimony on which we 
ground our faith as to the existence of London, conforms to each 
and all of the laws of testimony above laid down. We shall 
perceive, too, that this is the reason, and the sole reason, why 
our faith in the existence of London is so strong. If the testi- 
mony in the case were different ; if it failed to conform to some 
one,- two, or three of the laws of valid testimony ; if, for exam- 
ple, the witnesses were few and incompetent, of bad character 
and deeply interested ; if their testimony had not been con- 
firmed, as might be expected, by other evidence, and they did 
not themselves act as though they believed it ; — under these 
circumstances we might have our faith shaken even as to the 
existence of London. We might be constrained to disbelieve 
its existence altogether. 

The way is now prepared to apply the principles which have 
been laid down to the case in hand ; the testimony of the apos- 
tles and evangelists in support of Christianity. Does this testi- 
mony conform or not to the established laws of valid testimony ? 

In the first place, the witnesses to the truth of Christianity are 
sufiiciently numerous. No one can doubt this. Then these wit- 
nesses had the best means of information, and were capable of 
forming an intelligent judgment in regard to the facts about 
which they testified. They were men living at the time, and on 
the ground. They were eye and ear witnesses of the things 
which they relate. Again : the writers of the Gospels, so far as 
we have the means of judgiug, were men of good moral charac- 
ter ; and, instead of having any motive of worldly interest to 
induce them to fabricate a deception, and pass it off upon the 
world, every consideration of interest was impelling them the 
other way. The price of publishing the gospel message was to 
them the loss of all things ; and they had every reason to expect 
beforehand that it would be so. Then the testimony of these 
men is given in the plainest and most explicit terms. And it is 



THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE. 99 

throughout a coucurreut testimony, — altogether consistent with, 
itself. There are differences, indeed, in the gospel narratives. 
The witnesses do not all tell precisely the same story ; nor could 
it be reasonably expected that they would. It would be a seri- 
ous objection to them if they did ; laying them open to the 
suspicion of connivance and deceit. Still, there are no contra- 
dictions. Their testimony, on the whole, is consistent and 
concurrent. 

It should be further considered, that the story of these wit- 
nesses, if not true, admitted of a ready and easy contradiction. 
If, for example, Christ did not feed thousands of people with a 
few loaves and fishes ; if he did not heal the sick, and raise the 
dead ; if he was not tried, condemned, crucified, and buried ; and 
if he did not rise from the dead on the third day, — how easy to 
have effectually refuted these stories when they were first pub- 
lished ! Yet they were not refuted . They could not be . So far 
from this, they received confirmation from a thousand sources. 
And, to crown the whole, the original witnesses in this most 
important case lived and acted as though their testimony was 
true. They certainly knew whether it was true or not ; and 
they proclaimed aloud, and everywhere, in their future lives, — 
in their toils and perils, their sacrifices and sufferings, and under 
the bloody hand of the executioner, — that it was true. They 
sealed their testimony, in most cases, with their blood. 

I affirm, therefore, in concluding this argument, — and I feel 
authorized to do so with the utmost assurance, — that the testi- 
mony in support of the gospel history conforms to all the laws 
of valid testimony, and consequently is conclusive. Hence the 
gospel history — and with it, of course, the entire system of 
Christianity — is true. It is supported. Nor can it be over- 
thrown but by adopting principles which would render it impos- 
sible to prove anything by testimony. 

4. Another argument for the truth of Scripture may be drawn 
from facts actually existing before 4 our eyes. There are many 
such facts, events, institutions, customs, rites, for the origin of 
which the sacred penmen furnish a rational account, but of 
which, if their statements are rejected, no account can possibly 
be given. One of these is the creation of the world. It may be 



100 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

proved from other and independent sources that this world must 
have had a beginning ; and that, in all probability, it began to 
exist, at least in its present organization, at no very remote 
period. Now, Moses gives us a rational account of the creation 
of the world, and of its being fitted up for the residence of 
man, and the only rational account that has ever been given. 
Beject what he has written, and we have nothing left us but 
conjectures and fables. 

Another of the facts to which I refer is the existence of sin 
and misery in the ivorld. This is a fact, but it is a strange 
fact, — one that has puzzled and perplexed the restless, inquisi- 
tive mind of man for thousands of years. Now, Moses tells us 
of the introduction of sin. He gives us a plain, common-sense 
account of the matter. And if his account be rejected, what 
other can possibly be substituted in its place ? 

Another fact to be noticed in this connection is the early and 
almost universal division of time into iveeks. There are natural 
reasons why time should be divided into moons, or months, and 
into years. But there is no natural reason why it should be 
divided into weeks of seven days ; and no rational account of 
this ancient and almost universal mode of dividing time can be 
given, if we reject that which is given by Moses. 

It is evident, not only from universal tradition, but from 
appearances all around us, that this earth has been, perhaps 
more than once, deluged with water. Now, when was there such 
a deluge ? How was it ? Why was it ? Moses has answered 
all these questions ; and if we set aside his answer, who can 
give us any other? 

Again : it is a fact that numerous languages are spoken in the 
world : and though the most of these are cognate dialects, and 
originated one from another ; yet there are some radically and 
originally different languages. How came these different lan- 
guages? How came the human race, which is manifestly one 
race, to be separated and sundered one from another in this 
way? Moses explains this matter to us ; but reject his expla- 
nation, and who can give us any other? 

A most singular mode of propitiating and worshipping the 
Deity prevailed all over the ancient world, and still prevails in 



THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE. 101 

some parts of the earth ; — I mean that of bloody sacrifices. The 
mere light of nature and reason would never have led to this 
mode of worship. What natural connection is there between 
the killing of an innocent lamb or dove, and the acceptable 
worship of the Most High? How, then, are we to account for 
this early, and for long ages universal, mode of divine worship ? 
The Scriptures enable us to answer this question ; but, exclude 
the light which they shed upon it, and I defy any person to 
make out even a plausible answer. 

A most singular rite prevailed among several ancient nations, 
and still prevails, not only among the Jews, but in some heathen 
tribes; — I mean that of circumcision. ~No one can doubt the 
existence of such a rite ; and yet I think any one would be 
exceedingly puzzled to account for its origin, after he had set 
aside the history of it given us by Moses. 

I might go on to speak in the same way of the institution of 
the Sabbath, of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
per, of the existence of the Jews as a distinct people, and of 
the very existence of the Christian religion. These are all 
facts, — plain matters of fact, existing before our eyes, — and 
every reflecting, philosophical man should be able to give some 
rational account of them. How came one day in seven to be 
regarded as a sacred day, not only by Jews and Christians, but 
by most of the civilized nations of antiquity ? How originated 
the rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper ? The Jews still 
exist, — a singular, separate, peculiar people. How, when, 
where did they originate ? And who gave them their peculiar 
religious notions and rites? These Christians, too, — which can 
be proved to have existed and to have spread themselves over 
the face of the earth for more than eighteen hundred years, — 
where did they come from ? Who was their founder ? Whence 
did they derive the peculiarities of their religion and worship ? 
These are all of them fair questions, — questions arising from 
known and palpable facts ; and what answers shall be given to 
them ? With the Bible in our hands , it is easy to give satisfac- 
tory answers ; but throw this away, and what answer that shall 
be so much as plausible can possibly be framed ? 

With regard to several of the institutions here referred to, 



102 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

the argument is the more conclusive, because they are of a 
commemorative character. For instance, the Passover was 
instituted, and its institution recorded by Moses at the time, 
to commemorate the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt. 
Now, it is certain that no imposter of a later generation could 
have imposed this institution on the Israelites. Nor would they 
have received it at the hands of Moses if the facts which it 
commemorated had never taken place. The same may be said 
of the Feast of Pentecost, designed to commemorate the giving 
of the law ; of the Feast of Tabernacles, commemorative of the 
Israelites dwelling in tents ; of the Feast of Purim, which com- 
memorated their deliverance from Hainan ; and of the Lord's 
Supper, which now commemorates the death of Christ. How 
could this ordinance of the Supper ever have been instituted, 
received, and observed, if that event had not taken place which 
it was designed to commemorate, — in other words, had not 
Christ suffered and died, according to the Scriptures ? We have 
an annual festival on the fourth of July, to commemorate the 
declaration of American independence. Does any one suppose 
that this festival could ever have been got up, and brought into 
general notice and observance, if American independence had 
never been declared ? No more could any of the commemora- 
tive institutions of the Bible have been got up and established, 
if the events commemorated by them had not occurred. 

5. An argument for the truth of the Bible, of more weight 
than any other in the mind of the sincere, unlettered Christian, 
— an argument reaching not only to the facts of revelation, but 
to its doctrines, — grows out of his own experience. He may 
not have read books on the evidences of Christianity. He may 
not have acquainted himself with the historical arguments in 
favor of it at all. Still, he has no doubts as to the truth of the 
Bible ; and when you inquire as to the reason of his confidence, 
he tells you, "I know the Bible is true, because I feel it to be 
true. I am sure of the truth of it, because it accords so exactly 
with my own experience." For example, the Scriptures repre- 
sent the natural heart of man as corrupt and sinful. The Chris- 
tian knows from his own experience that this is true. The 
Scriptures speak of a great moral change as necessary in order 



THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE. 103 

to the possession of true religion. We must be born again ; we' 
must become new creatures in Christ Jesus. The Christian 
feels and hopes that he has experienced this change. Again : 
the Scriptures represent the Christian life on earth as one of 
conflict, of warfare; "the flesh lusting against the spirit, and 
the spirit against the flesh." The Christian is conscious of this 
warfare in his own soul. The Scriptures describe, in various 
ways, the peculiar views and exercises of those who have been 
born of God, — their desires and fears, their joys and sorrows, 
their aspirations and their hopes. The Christian perceives that 
these answer to his own. And thus, as our Saviour expresses 
it, "he has the witness in himself." He cannot doubt the truth 
of the Bible. When such an one says, " I know the Bible to be 
true, because I feel it to be true," he urges a sound argument. 
He reasons logically and well. 

Such an argument may not be satisfactory to the infidel ; and 
yet I see no good reason why it should not be. For what has 
he to urge against it? He can only say to the Christian, " My 
feelings are not like yours. I have no such experience." Alas, 
my friend ! we know you have not. The Bible itself asserts 
that you have not ; so that in what you say you rather verify 
than contradict the representations of Scripture*. But what 
does your lack of Christian experience prove? Does it prove 
that the experience of Christians, and the conscious agreement 
of their experience with the representations of Scripture, is not 
a reality? By no means. As well might the blind man deny 
the existence of light because he does not see it, or the deaf- 
mute that there is any such thing as sound because he does not 
hear it, as you deny the reality of Christian experience because 
you have never felt it, — have never tasted and seen that the 
Lord is good. Your Christian neighbor is an intelligent, moral, 
credible man. You believe him to be a pious man. He tells 
you that his own feelings, his own experience accord so en- 
tirely with the representations of Scripture, that he knows the 
latter must be true. Now, why will you not believe him? You 
would take his word on any other subject; why not on this? 
I only add — 

6. That the arguments for the truth of divine revelation are 



104 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

continually increasing, in numbers and in strength. It has been 
said that no system ever laid itself more completely open to 
detection, if it contained errors, than Christianity. " No book 
ever gave so many clues to discovery, if it tell untruths, as 
the sacred volume." And yet its leaves were thrown fearlessly 
open, from two to three thousand years ago, to the investiga- 
tion of philosophers and critics, to the scrutiny of friends and 
foes. Its leaves have lain unfolded from that time to the pres- 
ent, inviting discussion, inviting research ; saying virtually, like 
its great Author, " Testify against me if you can." And it has 
passed the ordeal. It has stood the test. Its evidences, so far 
from being weakened through the lapse of time , are continually 
gaining strength. The researches of the antiquary, the inves- 
tigations of modern science, the accidental discoveries which 
from time to time are made, the unceasing inquiries of restless, 
inquisitive man, instead of fulfilling the predictions of the in- 
fidel, and refuting the evidence for the truth of Scripture, all 
tend manifestly to confirm and establish it. Passages of Scrip- 
ture once dark have been brought into light : former objections 
have been obviated ; seeming discrepancies have been reconciled. 
What were regarded as difficulties two hundred years ago, are 
found such no longer. The very efforts of infidels have been 
made to recoil on their own heads. They have been overruled 
for the establishment and advancement of the gospel. In proof 
of these statements, I need only refer to the recent confirmations 
of Scripture found in the mounds of Assyria and the catacombs 
of Egypt ; also to the collateral support which its evidences are 
receiving from the discoveries in geology. 

In short, the time has come when, if Christians have ever had 
any fears as to the truth of their religion, they should have 
them no longer. They may rest perfectly assured that they are 
without foundation. Christianity may yet be assailed ; but it 
will come out of every new trial, as it has out of every previous 
one, strengthened in its evidences, and not weakened; victori- 
ous, and not vanquished. 

I conclude with a single remark. If Christianity is true, 
then, to us, it is the greatest of all truths. If it is true at all, it 
is true in all its parts, — its doctrines, its precepts, its promises, 



THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE. 105 

its threatenings, its warnings, its sanctions. It is true in its 
various bearings and far-reaching influences. It is truth deserv- 
ing the most earnest attention, because it is truth immediately, 
and of all others most solemnly, interesting to mortals. It dis- 
closes to them what they are, and what they must be; what God 
has done for them, and what they must do for themselves in 
order to be saved. The Bible tells us of guilt — dreadful guilt. 
It tells also of judgment — awful judgment. It tells of a Deliv- 
erer, who saves all those that embrace and follow him, and who 
punishes all others with an aggravated condemnation. It shows 
us the great white throne, and the final Judge seated upon it, 
before whom the earth and the heavens flee away. It shows us 
the rising dead, the assembled worlds, the opened books, the 
final awards. It shows us heaven, and it shows us hell ; and 
shows us what we must be and do, in order to escape the one 
and possess the other. Now, these are truths — and they are 
truths if the Bible is true — which, for solemn interest and 
impression, cast all others into shade. These are truths, on the 
heights of which the Christian may plant himself, and look far 
down upon mere questions of business, or of science, as man- 
hood looks upon the baubles of infancy, or as angels may be 
supposed to look upon the trifling pursuits of men. 

May I be permitted to inquire of you, my young brethren, 
Do you believe these truths ? Do you feel and live as though 
you believed them ? Does the appropriate fruit of them appear 
in your conversation and life? These are vitally important 
questions. On your ability to answer them as you could desire 
depends the present state, and, it may be, the final destiny of 
your souls. 

14 



106 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUKE IX. 

DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 

The divine authority of Scripture implies that God has made 
direct and supernatural revelations of his truth and will to men, 
and that these revelations are in the Bible. The Bible contains 
them. It is a record of them. Whether this is an inspired 
and infallible record we do not here say. That b'elongs to 
another subject. What we are now to prove is, that the Bible 
includes,' embodies God's revelations to the world, and conse- 
quently is of divine authority. And this we argue : 

1. From the truth of Scripture. If the Bible is true, as we 
have before proved, it certainly is of divine authority ; for the 
sacred writers claimed to deliver messages from God. Moses 
went to Pharaoh, and went to the Israelites, not in his own 
name, but in the name of God. He introduced all his messages 
with a Thus saith the Lord. The same did the inspired prophets. 
The same did the apostles. The same did our Saviour himself . 
" The words which I speak unto you are not mine, but his that 
sent me." "Ye received the word which ye heard of us," says 
Paul, " not as the word of man, but, as it is in truth, the word 
of God " (1 Thess. ii. 13) . If the Bible is true, then these, and 
a thousand other like assertions, are true. They are as true as 
any other part of the Bible. And they establish this most im- 
portant fact, that the Bible is a revelation from God, and carries 
with it a divine authority. 

2. The divine authority of Scripture is fully attested by 
miracles. A miracle is something more than a strange thing, 
or to us an unaccountable thing. It is not certain that an event 
is miraculous because it is not in accordance with any law of 
nature with which we are acquainted. There may be natural 
laws of which, at present, we have no knowledge, with some one 
or more of which the seeming miracle may be at an agreement. 



DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 107 

But suppose we see some known law of nature supervened, and 
an event taking place in direct contradiction to it. It is not 
merely above and beyond what we know of nature, but in direct 
contravention of what we know. Such an event is a proper 
miracle, known to be such ; and, from the nature of the case, it 
is, and must be, a work of God. It involves a direct interven- 
tion of that Omnipotence by which the laws of nature were 
established, and which alone is able to suspend them. 1 

It will be objected, perhaps, that we are not enough ac- 
quainted with nature's laws to know when they are suspended. 
Of course we cannot decide, in any given case, whether the 
event is a miracle or not. But to this I reply, that, with all our 
short-sightedness and ignorance, we do know something in regard 
to the powers and laws of nature. We have, or may have, not 
presumption or conjecture, but knowledge here ; else all philos- 
ophy is delusive, and every attempt at philosophical inquiry 
must be fruitless. But if we may know, to some extent, what 
the laws of nature are, then we may know when they are 
suspended or contravened. In other words, we may know and 
distinguish a palpable miracle from every other kind of event. 

It may be objected, again, that what seems to us to contra- 
vene some known law of nature may be in accordance with 
some unknown and higher law, and so may not be a miracle 
after all. Are we to understand, then, that what we call the 
laws, the regular movements of nature, ever contravene each 
other? Do they run in diverse and opposite directions, cross- 
ing occasionally each other's track? But this would set nature 
in opposition to itself. It would represent its great movements 
as variant and contradictory, and expose them to meet in fre- 
quent conflict, and with tremendous crash — a supposition which 
no lover of nature can be willing to admit. 

It may be objected to the idea which has been advanced that 
no being but God can perform a miracle, that the miracles of 
Scripture are sometimes ascribed to devils, and to wielded men. 
Thus Satan is said to have spoken with the tongue of a serpent, 
and deceived our first mother ; and the" magicians of Egypt 

1 The laws here spoken of are, of course, physical and not moral laws. To suppose 
the latter, would make every miracle a sin. 



108 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

wrought miracles in the presence of Pharaoh. In reply to this 
I would remark, that there is nothing impossible in the suppo- 
sition that God may employ Satan, or wicked men, as his instru- 
ments in performing miracles. It would be no certain evidence 
of the piety of a person that he was endowed with miraculous 
powers. He might have all faith, so that he could remove 
mountains, and yet, without charity, he would be nothing. 
Still, every real miracle, by whatever instrumentality produced, 
is the work of God, and is performed for some purpose worthy of 
God. Thus the miracle of the serpent's speaking — if miracle it 
was — was performed by God, not for the purpose of deceiving 
our first parents and drawing them into sin, but of trying them. 
They were on trial, and must be tried; and the speaking of the 
serpent constituted a necessary part of their probation. 

It may well be doubted, however, whether this speakiug of 
the serpent was a miracle, and whether a proper miracle was 
ever brought about through the instrumentality of Satan. 
Without doubt, Satan, and those under him, may, if permitted, 
do strange things, — things unaccountable to us; but unaccount- 
able things are not all miracles. They do not necessarily in- 
volve a suspension or contravention of any of nature's laws. 

And as to the alleged miracles of wicked men, it is likely that 
the most of them have been mere tricks, performed by some 
sleight of hand, for purposes of deception and of gain. Such, 
I have no doubt, were the pretended miracles of the magicians 
in Egypt. They did certain things with their enchantments, 
which is equivalent to saying that there was some deception in 
the case — that, in point of fact, they did not do them at all. 
And so of " the great signs and wonders " which our Saviour 
forewarned his disciples that the false Christs who should come 
after him would perform. We know what these " signs and 
wonders" were, for Josephus and others have informed us. 
They were the merest cheats and impositions, by which multi- 
tudes of the infatuated Jews were deluded to their destruction. 

We come back, then, to the position first assumed, — that a 
clear and proper miracle is an event, not only out of the com- 
mon course of nature, but contrary to it ; transcending obvi- 
ously the capacities of creatures, and implying in all cases a 



DIVINE AUTHOKITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 109 

direct intervention of Almighty power. A proper miracle 
always is, and may be known to be, a work of God. 

Now, the Bible contains accounts of many such miracles, — 
miracles extending through a long succession of years, from the 
time of Moses to the end of the apostolic age. And these ac- 
counts are true, if the Bible is true. And the miracles performed 
were real miracles, — known to be such, both from their nature 
and their results. They were performed, not secretly, but 
openly ; in the presence, not merely of partial friends, but of 
bitter enemies, who were constrained, much against their preju- 
dices and their inclinations, to confess their reality. The results 
of them, too, were not momentary, but abiding. The plagues 
of Egypt continued until their reality was painfully and uni- 
versally felt, and till Moses was entreated to pray for their 
removal. Those who were healed by our Saviour and his apos- 
tles continued healed ; and those who were raised from the dead 
actually lived for a considerable time. These events, therefore, 
were not tricks, sleights of hand, impositions practised upon 
the eyes and ears of spectators, but sober realities, — acknowl- 
edged to be so at the time by both friends and foes. They were 
not merely strange and unaccountable things, above what we 
know of the powers of nature, but the most of them were pal- 
pably contrary to nature, involving a contravention or suspen- 
sion of some one or more of nature's laws. Those who regard 
the Bible as true, must believe that these events actually took 
place as there described ; and, if they took place, they cer- 
tainly were miracles, and the hand of God was in them. 

I know it has been said by Mr. Hume that the occurrence of 
a miracle cannot be established by any amount of testimony. 
His reasoning on the point is to this effect : "Since the ground 
of our reliance on testimony is experience and observation, and 
since we have more frequently found the testimony of others to 
be false than we have seen miracles performed ; therefore, when 
the sacred writers speak of miracles, it is more likely that they 
tell falsehoods than that these occurrences actually took place." 
I have no occasion to go into a consideration of this oft-refuted 
objection here. It flatly contradicts, as it was designed to do, 
the truth of Scripture. It contradicts, also, the facts of nature ; 



110 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

for nature presents miracles a hundred-fold more numerous than 
those of the Bible. Geology tells us, not only of the commence- 
ment of organized existence on this earth, but of the successive 
destruction of old species of animals and vegetables, and the 
creation of new ones. But the commencement of every species 
is a miracle. Nature has a law according to which the differ- 
ent species,' when once in existence, may perpetuate themselves, 
but no law according to which a new species may be commenced. 
The origin of every new species is,' therefore, as I said, a mira- 
cle. And miracles of this nature have been vastly numerous. 
They have followed each other through countless ages, and in 
long succession. Their history is written, not on parchment, 
but in the deep recesses of the rocks, which are now beginning 
to be exhumed and investigated. What would Mr. Hume, if he 
were living, say of miracles such as these ? Whatever may be 
thought of the testimony of apostles and evangelists, certainly 
the testimony of the rocks ought to be believed. 

I might further add, in reply to Mr. Hume's objection, that 
the main premise on which it is based is without foundation. 

The ground of our reliance on the testimony of others is not, 
as he alleges, experience and observation. This we know from 
undeniable facts. Men do not become credulous from experi- 
ence, but rather incredulous. Our experience of the deceit and 
falsehood of the world leads us to doubt, more than to believe. 
Children, and those who have had but little experience, are in 
the habit of believing almost everything. Now, facts such as 
these, so common and obvious, go to assure us, as I said, that 
the ground of our reliance on testimony is not experience and 
observation. Of course, the grand assumption in Mr. Hume's 
argument is unfounded. The fact of miracles may be proved 
by testimony, just as well as any other fact ; and where the tes- 
timony in support of them is conclusive (as it has been proved 
to be in the case before us) , we are bound to believe that they 
actually took place. 

But if the miracles of Scripture actually occurred, then why 
did they occur ? What was the leading object or aim of them ? 
They must have been performed by God for some great pur- 
pose ; and it deeply concerns us to know what this purpose was. 



DIVINE AUTHOKITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. Ill 

The more immediate and subordinate ends to be answered by 
miracles may have been various. Not a few of them were 
performed out of compassion for the sick, the afflicted, the 
distressed. Others were inflicted in righteous judgment upon 
the wicked. Others still were intended for the trial of those 
more immediately concerned. They were resorted to as a 
means of forming and developing character. But all these 
were no more than subordinate purposes. They were not the 
grand leading object in view. This must have been something 
vastly higher, and of more general interest to the world. 

-The great end of miracles, obviously, was to attest the divine 
mission of those who performed them, and the divine authority 
of the revelations which they were instructed to deliver. In fre- 
quent instances this object is brought out prominently in the 
record ; in others it evidently lies at the foundation, and consti- 
tutes the leading, prompting motive for the exertion of miracu- 
lous power. Thus when Moses went with a message from God 
to Pharaoh, he demanded (as it might have been presumed he 
would), "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice? I 
know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go." And now 
God proceeds, by a series of stupendous and crushing miracles, 
to show Pharaoh who he is, and to convince him that in the 
presence of the God of Israel he , is himself but a worm. By 
these repeated miracles God attested the divine commission 
of Moses and Aaron, sanctioned their messages as coming from 
himself, and at length constrained the unwilling monarch to 
yield to the demands which at first he had so proudly resisted. 
So, when the murmuring Israelites in the desert called in ques- 
tion (as they often did) the divine commission of their appointed 
leaders, and the divine authority of their communications, 
miracles were almost instantly wrought to attest and sanction 
both. The dry rock is smitten, and water gushes forth. 
Aaron's rod flourisheth, while the others are dried up. The 
earth opens under the feet of the rebels, and they go down 
alive into the pit. In the days of Elijah, the people were halt- 
ing between two opinions, not knowing whom to recognize as 
true prophets, or whether to worship God or Baal. And to 
satisfy them again, a notable miracle was wrought. Fire comes 



112 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

down visibly from heaven, consumes the sacrifice and the wood, 
and licks up the very water in the surrounding trenches. 

And, not to multiply instances from the Old Testament, our 
Saviour continually appealed to his miracles in proof of his 
Messiahship, and in attestation of the divine authority of his 
words. "The works which my Father hath given me to do, 
the same bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." 
" If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not ; but if I 
do, though ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may 
know that the Father is in me, and I in him." 

The grand object of the apostles' miracles was- precisely the 
same. "They went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord 
working with them, and confirming the word with signs follow- 
ing " When the apostleship of Paul was called in question, in 
vindication of it he appealed at once to his miracles. " Truly, 
the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, 
in signs and wonders and mighty deeds" 

It may further satisfy us, as to the leading object of miracles, 
to take into consideration their frequent effect upon those that 
witnessed them. This was to compel an assent, and often an 
unwilling assent, to the divine mission and authority of those 
who performed them. Thus, the miracles of Moses convinced 
not only Pharaoh, but the magicians themselves. When they 
saw what was done, they were constrained to acknowledge, 
"This is the finger of God." The miracle of Elijah in raisiug 
the widow's son drew from her the following noble confession : 
" By this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word 
of the Lord in thy mouth is truth" (1 Kings xvii. 24). It 
was the miracles of Christ which convinced Mcodemus of his 
divine mission. "We know that thou art a teacher come from 
God ; for no man can do the miracles that thou doest, except 
God be with him" (John iii. 2). So the miracle of Paul, in 
smiting Elymas, the sorcerer, with blindness, convinced all who 
saw it of the truth of his words. "And those who saw what 
was clone believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the 
Lord" (Acts xiii. 12). 

In short, there can be no doubt as to the leading design and 
object of the miracles of the Bible. They were designed, as I 



DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 113 

said, to attest the divine mission of the inspired teachers, and 
the divine authority of their communications ; and thus to 
establish the faith, not only of those who heard them, but of all 
who should become acquainted with their words and works. 

Such, then, was the declared design of the miracles of Scrip- 
ture ; and the only remaining question is, Were they sufficient 
for the object? In other words, Is the argument from miracles 
for the divine authority of Scripture conclusive ? 

It is certain that our Saviour often employed this argument, 
and urged it home upon the consciences of the Jews. Hence 
we cannot call in question the soundness of it without impeach- 
ing the character of Christ. But, not to insist upon this consid- 
eration, let us look into the argument itself. We have seen 
what proper miracles are, and that they are always the work of 
Gocl. By whatever instrumentality they may be performed, 
they involve, of necessity, the direct intervention of Almighty 
power. But the Scriptures bring before us a long succession 
of miracles,-— miracles in the strictest sense of the word, — 
every one of which was wrought by God, and with the intent, 
to attest the divine authority of those revelations which he was 
making to the world. Is, then, the attestation of God to be 
relied on ? Is his witness in this most important matter true ? 
If so, the Scriptures are from him. They have all the author- 
ity which he can give them. They have the broad seal of 
Heaven stamped upon them, and are to be regarded and hon- 
ored as veritable revelations of his truth and will. 

I have dwelt the longer on this argument from miracles, 
because it is the one which infidels and skeptics have the most 
frequently and violently assailed ; and because, when properly 
stated and vindicated (as it may be, and should be), it consti- 
tutes one of the main pillars on which the whole fabric of rev- 
elation rests. 

The remaining arguments in proof of the divine authority of 
Scripture may be presented in fewer words. 

3. The next I shall consider is that drawn from the prophecies 
of Scripture. To look into futurity and disclose distant future 
events, those depending, not on the ascertained laws and opera- 
tions of nature, but upon seeming contingencies, or on the free 

15 



114 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

actions of men — this is the prerogative of God alone. No other 
being in the universe can do it. And so the case is represented 
in the Scriptures. "I am God, and there is none like me ; de- 
claring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the 
things that are not yet done" (Isa. xlvi. 9, 10). To "declare 
the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things 
that are not yet done ; " in other words, to predict the distant 
and contingent future, is here represented as the prerogative of 
God alone. In another passage, God challenges the idols of 
the heathen to vindicate their claim to divinity by predicting 
future events. " Show us the things that are to come hereafter, 
that we may know that ye are gods ; " implying that if they 
could show the things that were to be hereafter, their claim to 
divinity would be established (Isa. xli. 23). In the fifth chap- 
ter of the Apocalypse a vast map of the future is exhibited 
under the symbol of a sealed roll, or book ; and " no creature 
in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to 
open the book, neither to look thereon." We are here taught 
the same lesson as before. To all created minds, the whole 
contingent future is a sealed book ; and a sealed book it must 
remain, except so far as God is pleased to unseal and open it. 

We conclude, therefore, that every proper prediction is a 
revelation from God. From the nature of the case it must be 
so. Creatures may presume, may conjecture, may make calcu- 
lations ; but God alone can with certainty predict. The calcu- 
lations of creatures often disappoint them ; but God's predic- 
tions never. These are sure to go into effect, and in the precise 
way and manner which he has indicated. 

There is a passage in Deuteronomy (xiii. 1-3) which has 
been thought by some to contradict the statement that God 
alone can foretell future events. "If there arise among you a 
prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he giveth thee a sign or a 
wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he 
spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods and serve 
them ; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, 
or that dreamer of dreams ; for the Lord your God proveth you, 
to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your 
heart and with all your soul." The representation here is, as 



DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 115 

some have thought, that the seducing prophet or dreamer may 
give a sign or a wonder that shall come to pass; or, in other 
words, that he may utter a real prediction. But is it certain 
that the representation implies as much as this ? The greatest 
bungler at soothsaying may guess right in some instances. An 
adept in the business may do so frequently. But if he should 
guess right, and the thing which he predicted should come to 
pass, the Israelites were not to go after him, more especially if 
his object was to draw them into idolatry ; but they were to 
regard the event as a necessary part of their trial, and adhere 
to the service of the Lord their God. 

Or if we are to suppose the seducing prophet to utter a real 
prediction, the prediction must be regarded as having come, 
through him, from God, and designed, as before, for the trial 
of his people. In either case there is nothing in this scripture, 
or in any other, to contradict the supposition that every real 
prediction is a revelations, from God, 

The only question, then, is, Does the Bible contain real pre- 
dictions ? And what fair-minded reader" of the Bible can enter- 
tain a doubt on this subject? Here is a continued series of 
predictions, reaching from Genesis to the Revelation, many of 
.which have been most remarkably fulfilled, — so remarkably, in 
some instances, as to constrain the unbeliever, in opposition to 
all historical evidence, to affirm that the alleged prediction must 
have been written subsequent to the events foretold ; that it is, 
in fact, history, and riot prophecy. Witness the predictions of 
Isaiah as to the capture of Babylon, and the return of the 
Jews ; and Daniel's vision of the four beasts ; and our Saviour's 
prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem ; and the declara- 
tions of all the prophets as to the present scattered and separate 
state of the Jewish people. But if the Bible contains real pre- 
dictions, then certainly it contains revelations from God, and is 
of divine authority. 

4. Another argument to the same point may be drawn from 
the early and rapid propagation of Christianity. When we 
consider the obstacles which, in primitive times, opposed the 
progress of the gospel, the feebleness of the means employed 
to promote it, and the nature of its doctrines and requisitions as 



116 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

being opposed to the natural feelings and characters of men, 
there is no way to account for its wide and rapid diffusion but 
by regarding it as of divine origin and authority. False reli- 
gions have sometimes spread rapidly, either because of their 
adaptation to the corrupt- propensities and habits of men, or 
because they were propagated with the sword. But neither of 
these causes wrought anything in favor of the spread of the 
gospel. Their influence was all the other way. The sword, 
instead of being wielded for its support, was used with terrible 
effect for its overthrow. The powers of earth and hell were 
enlisted against it. And yet this hated and persecuted religion 
prevailed, in face of all opposition, till, in less than four hun- 
dred years, it became the religion of the vast Eoman Empire, 
and virtually of the civilized world. I repeat, there is no way 
possible in which, under the circumstances, to account for the 
early and rapid diffusion of the gospel, but by supposing it to 
have come from God. 

If we look now into the gospel itself, we shall find additional 
proof of its divine origin. This is evident — 

5. From the nature and excellency of its doctrines. From 
the very nature of many of the facts and truths of the Bible, it 
is certain that no being but God could have revealed them. 
What other being could have instructed us respecting the crea- 
tion of the world ; the introduction of sin ; the mysterious mode 
of the divine existence ; the divinity of Christ and of the Holy 
Spirit ; the peculiar work of each of these personages in our 
redemption ; the resurrection of the body ; the general judg- 
ment ; and the retributions of eternity ? A book instructing us 
on "these and similar topics, and telling the truth, must necessa- 
rily be from God. And in regard to most of the doctrines of 
the gospel, when we consider their elevated and elevating char- 
acter, — their reasonableness, their purity, their moral excellence, 
their immeasurable superiority to all the works of mere philos- 
ophers ; and consider, too, that their human authors were un- 
lettered men ; poor, despised Jews and Israelites, — we are 
constrained to admit that these doctrines must have had some- 
thing more than a mere human origin. They must have come 
from God. 



DIYTXE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 117 

6. The divine authority of the Bible maybe argued from the 
purity aud elevation of its moral code. In this respect it dis- 
dains all comparison with the most celebrated ethical works of 
antiquity. It is as much above them as the heavens are higher 
than the earth. But how came the illiterate authors of the Bible 
by this elevated and perfect system of morality, unless they 
were super naturally taught of God ? 

This argument may be presented in another form. The 
Scriptures claim to be a revelation from God. If they are not 
such, they are a gross imposition. But who imposed them? 
Who were the authors of the cheat? Not good men, certainly ; 
for good men would do no such thing. Not bad men, certainly ; 
for bad men would never have given us such a book as this. 
The purity and elevation of its moral code and character utterly 
forbid the supposition. 

7. The fulness of Scripture is an evidence of its divine ori- 
gin. Human compositions, after several perusals, usually become 
uninteresting and insipid. We grasp the author's meaning, we 
possess ourselves of his ideas, and the work becomes stale. 
But not so the Bible. The more frequently and closely this is 
studied, the more interesting it becomes. Something new and 
excellent is discovered at every sitting. At the close of a long 
life, the most diligent students of the Bible have often said that 
they seemed to have but just entered on a boundless field. 
Like the widow's barrel and cruse, this holy book is never 
exhausted, though continually supplying materials for spiritual 
nourishment and growth. Few of the human race are so- weak 
as not to be capable of understanding much of the Bible ; none 
are so great and learned as to compass and comprehend it all. 

8. In nothing is the Bible more remarkable, and more clearly 
of divine origin, then in its exact adaptation to human wants. 
It is in this respect, emphatically, the one thing needful. Situ- 
ated as men are in the present world, they stand in need of 
many things. They need light and instruction ; need motives 
and encouragements ; need a Saviour and a Sauctifier ; need 
spiritual protection and support. They need to be enlightened 
in regard to the unseen and endless future ; — to know what 
they are, and what they must be ; what God has done for them, 



118 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

and what they must do for themselves, in' order that they may 
be happy forever. Now, without going into any discussion, it 
may be affirmed, in the general, that, in respect to all these 
most important particulars, the Bible is just what we need. It 
shows itself to have come from a Being who knows our wants, 
and has most wisely adapted his revelations to meet them. 

9. Another argument for the divine origin and authority of 
Scripture grows out of the harmony of its several parts among 
themselves, and with the teachings of nature. Between the 
two Testaments, and the different parts of each of them, there 
is a remarkable and perfect agreement. The design, the end, 
the doctrines, the duties, the hopes encouraged and the motives 
urged, are throughout the same, and are consistent one with 
another. This fact is the more remarkable, since the doctrines 
and precepts of the Bible are usually delivered in detached 
sentences and unconnected propositions, rather than in regular 
discourses ; and since the writers lived in ages and countries 
far distant from each other, and could not possibly have con- 
certed the coincidences which appear in their books. One part 
of the harmony of Scripture consists in the agreement between 
symbol and substance, type and antitype, — an agreement in- 
volving the nature of a prediction, and which could have been 
effected by- no being but God. 

Other religions, which prevailed extensively in ancient times, 
and prevail now, present many things contradictory to the teach- 
ings of nature; at which science and reason and the moral sense 
revolt. But not so the Bible. This is a republication of the 
religion of nature, — with many and glorious additions, but with 
no contradictions. Both are manifestly from the same great 
Author. 

10. There is something in the peculiar manner of the sacred 
writers which indicates an accompanying divine assistance and 
wisdom. I refer now to the ease and readiness with which they 
throw out their ideas and announce their decisions on the most 
mysterious and incomprehensible subjects, — those farthest re- 
moved from the ordinary processes of human thought. We find 
no misgiving, no hesitancy, no apparent labor of the under- 
standing, here, such as we might expect to find had the writers 



DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 119 

been left to their own unaided powers ; but, on the contrary, 
all is easy and positive and certain. They speak "as those 
having authority, and not as the scribes." The explanation is, 
they had authority. They had a commission and a revelation 
from the Holy One. 

11. The divine authority of the Scriptures may be inferred 
from the poiver which has attended them, and from the great 
and good effects which they have produced in the world. This 
power and these effects may be regarded in a twofold light : 
either as bearing on the individual, or on society in general. In 
reference to the individual, the Scriptures alone — of all the sys- 
tems of philosophy or religion that have ever been proclaimed — 
possess the power of subduing the heart, and radically reforming 
the character and life. The Scriptures alone have proved them- 
selves to be "quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged 
sword ; " " mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strong- 
holds ; " and " able to make men wise unto salvation." Unless 
these Scriptures are from God, and are accompanied to the 
soul by an energy from heaven, how is it possible to account 
for these saving results upon the minds and hearts of the chil- 
dren of men? 

As to the good effects of Christianity upon society in general, 
it would be easy to write volumes ; but I can say only a few 
words. Let any person compare the state of the Christian 
world — the spirit of its laws, the tone of public sentiment and 
morals, its progress in learning and civilization, its humane and 
charitable institutions — with the state of the heathen in ancient 
or in modern times, and he will see what are the tendency and. 
effects of Christianity. Or let any one compare the characters 
of true Christians — their holy, exemplary lives and happy 
deaths — with tke lives and deaths of modern infidels, and he 
will see the same. And the only reason why this argument is 
not more convincing is, that the true spirit of Christianity is so 
poorly developed. If the gospel were universally received and 
obeyed, wars and fightings would cease ; superstition, oppres- 
sion, and every form of wickedness would come to an end ; and 
virtue and happiness would reign throughout the world. All 
men would then see and acknowledge that a religion which bore 



120 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

such fruit, which produced such great and good results, mast 
have originated in heaven. 

12. I have but another argument to urge in favor of the 
divine authority of the Bible, — the same which was urged in 
support of its truth : it is that which the Christian finds in his 
own soul. r 'If any man," saith Christ, "will do his will, he 
shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God." True Chris- 
tians have fulfilled the condition here proposed, and they realize 
the truth of the promise. They do know of the doctrine that 
it is of God. They find such a blessed agreement between the 
representations of Scripture and the feelings of their own hearts, 
that they cannot doubt as to the divine origin of the Bible. It 
must have proceeded from the same Being who knows the hearts 
of his children perfectly, and has so accurately set them forth in 
the pages of his Word. This argument has more weight, prob- 
ably, than every other, with Christians in common life, to remove 
their doubts, and give them a settled, unwavering faith in the 
truth and divine authority of the Sacred Word. 

If the Bible is God's book, coming to us in his name and by 
his authority, then it deserves a most serious and reverent atten- 
tion. Who would not listen, were God to speak to him in an 
audible voice from the heavens ? Yet God is as really speaking 
to us in his Word, as though he addressed us in a voice of thun- 
der from the skies. The Apostle Peter, on the mount of trans- 
figuration, actually heard the Holy One speaking to him from 
the clouds. Eeferring to this event near the close of life, the 
apostle says : " We have a more sure ivord of prophecy, unto 
which ye do well to take heed, as to a light shining in a dark 
place" (2 Pet. i. 19). Yes, a more sure word of prophecy ; 
more to be regarded, more to be depended on, than a voice of 
thunder from the skies. The latter might deceive us ; the for- 
mer never will. We might stand in doubt as to the cause of the 
latter ; but respecting the author of the former, we cannot, with 
any reason, stand in doubt. Let us, then, listen to the exhorta- 
tion of the holy apostle. ■ Let us give diligent heed to this more 
sure word of prophecy, as to a light shining in a dark place, 
until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in our hearts. 



THE INSPIRATION OF' THE SCRIPTURES. 121 



LECTUKE X. 

THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 

In my last Lecture I endeavored to show that the Scriptures 
are of divine authority ; in other words , that God has made 
supernatural revelations of his truth and will to mankind, and 
that these revelations are in the Bible. The Bible is a record 
of them. The question now arises : Is this a merely human 
record, in the main faithful, but, like everything else human, 
fallible and imperfect? Or is it a divinely inspired and infal- 
lible record^ Were the sacred writers left to their own unaided 
wisdom in accomplishing their work ; or were they so inspired 
and assisted as to be secured from all mistakes and errors, 
being led to write just what the Divine Spirit would have them 
write, and in just the manner in which he would have them 
write it? These last questions we answer in the affirmative; 
and this is what we mean by the inspiration of the Scriptures, 

It will be seen that the inspiration of Scripture, thus defined, 
is a subject by itself. Other subjects are intimately connected 
with it, but yet are distinct from it, and should be kept distinct. 
They cannot be confounded with it without embarrassing the 
question. We may settle the canon of Scripture ever so satis- 
factorily ; we may settle the authenticity and integrity of our 
sacred books ; we may satisfy ourselves that they are true, and 
contain revelations from God : but the question still remains, 
What kind of record have we of those revelations ? This record 
was made by men, and is in the style and the language of men ; 
but is it merely human? Or were* its original writers so guided, 
guarded, superintended, assisted, that — without any restraint 
upon the natural exercise of their own powers — they were 
enabled to give us an unerring standard of duty and of truth ? 

16 



122 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Theologians have spoken of several kinds of inspiration ; as 
that of elevation, of superintendence, and of suggestion. The 
inspiration of elevation is a mere exciting, quickening, and 
elevating of the human faculties, — filling the soul with great 
thoughts and strong emotions, and thus enabling it to give 

© © ' o © 

utterance to just and noble sentiments. Such was the inspira- 
tion of some of the ancient poets and philosophers. Such was 
the inspiration of David and Daniel, of John and Paul. Such 
is the inspiration of many in modern times. And there are not 
a few who claim that this is the only inspiration ; that it is, or 
ought to be, a common gift ; that all should expect it, and be 
aspiring after it. But, so far as this being the only inspiration, 
it is not properly inspiration at all. Certainly, it is not inspira- 
tion in the sense in which we propose to consider the subject. 
A great many causes may tend to excite and elevate the minds 
of men — exciting • circumstances, nervous diseases, narcotic 
stimulants, etc. ; but shall we deem all such persons inspired? 
Besides, a large part of the Bible seems not to have been 
written under the influence of any unnatural excitement or 
elevation. It is simple narrative. It is plain, sober, didactic 
prose. Are we, then, to regard such portions of Scripture as 
destitute of inspiration ? This theory of inspiration is a virtual 
denial of it, in any proper sense of the term. It is putting the 
Bible on a level with the writings of other ancient sages and 

© © 

poets, which is to take away utterly its divine character, and 
.make it no longer of binding authority. 

The distinction between the inspiration of suggestion and that 
of superintendence, I regard as one of degree, and of no great 
practical importance. The first supposes the Spirit to have 
suggested, throughout, the very words of Scripture. The latter 
supposes him to have so superintended the minds and hands 
and pens of the sacred writers, that they were effectually guarded 
against all error, and were led to write just that which Grod, on 
the whole, preferred. The probability is that both these kinds 
of inspiration were enjoyed at times ; or that the Spirit was 
imparted to the sacred writers in different degrees, as occasion 
required. When recording direct revelations from God, — things 
about which they had no other means of knowledge ; or when 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 123 

recording, as they often did, the very words of the Lord, ut- 
tered by him in his own person, — they must have had what has 
been called the inspiration of suggestion. The very words to be 
recorded were suggested to their minds. So when recording 
things which they had once known, but had forgotten, they 
needed (what the Saviour expressly promised them) the aid of 
the Spirit, to "bring all things to their remembrance." But 
when recording events of which they were fully informed, either 
from personal observation or the information of others, they 
needed only such a supervision as should prevent all mistake, 
and lead them to write, and in the right manner, what was in 
accordance with the divine will. In every case they had such 
assistance as they needed, in order to give to the world a 
divinely accredited record of the Sacred Word, — an infallible 
standard of duty and of truth. 

The subject before us has been embarrassed, at times, by not 
marking the distinction between inspiration and revelation. 
Revelation is the direct impartation of God's truth to the mind 
of the prophet, — truth of which he could in no other way obtain 
a knowledge. Inspiration denotes the assistance afforded in the 
utterance of God's truth, or in recording what God was pleased 
to have written in his Word. All scripture is not divine revela- 
tion ; but all scripture is written under a divine inspiration, and 
consequently is an infallible record of what God would have 
recorded for our "instruction in. righteousness." There are 
passages in the Bible which are not true in any sense, and of 
course are not a revelation of God's truth. Such were the 
speech of the serpent to our first mother ; and the message of 
Rabshakeh to the Jews in the days of Hezekiah ; and the spite- 
ful letter of Sanballat to Nehemiah ; and the plea of Tertullus 
against Paul ; and the false reasonings and reproaches of Job's 
three friends. Yet all these, and the like scriptures, may have 
been written under a divine inspiration. We have a true and 
inspired account of things said and done, however false they 
may be in themselves. 

It follows, from the statements which have been made, that 
the Scriptures are the work both of men and of God ; of men in 
the regular exercise of their own faculties, each expressing his 



124 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

thoughts in his own natural way; while each is so supervised, 
assisted, directed by the Divine Spirit as to record infallibly 
God's truth' and will. It has been doubted by some whether 
such a union of the divine agency and the human, in the work 
of inspiration, was possible. But we have proof of its possibility, 
and also of its credibility, in that it conforms so exactly to God's 
usual method of operating in other things. It is in God that 
" we live and move and have our being ; " yet, in giving us life, 
and breath, and being, God interrupts not the regular exercise 
of our own natural powers, but rather sustains them. The 
conversion and sanctification of the soul, too, is the work of 
God ; yet in this work there is no interference with the normal 
activities of him who is the subject of it. " God worketh in us 
to will and to do, of his own good pleasure," while we "work 
out our own salvation with fear and trembling. " And just so 
in the matter of inspiration. God supervises, assists, restrains, 
suggests, and does all that is necessary, that the utterance or 
the record may be in accordance with his will ; and yet the sub- 
ject of it thinks his own thoughts, exercises his own faculties, 
and speaks or writes much after his own natural method. 

But, without further explanation, we come now to the ques- 
tion of proof. What evidence have we that the holy Scriptures 
are, in the sense explained, inspired? And I remark — 

1. This is, a priori, a reasonable supposition. If God were 
to be at the expense of making a revelation, he 'would not be 
likely to leave it to human imperfection and weakness, infirmity 
and error, to make a record of it. We might reasonably antic- 
ipate that he would so inspire and assist his servants, that they 
should utter and record his word in the manner most agreeable 
to his will. This certainly is a reasonable supposition ; and it 
should prepare us to look with- favor on such evidence as may 
be presented to show that the supposition is true. 

2. In my last Lecture I spoke of a peculiarity of manner in 
the sacred writers as furnishing proof of their divine authority. 
The same consideration may be urged in support of their inspi- 
ration. The style of our sacred books is indeed human, as I 
have said. It shows itself to be the style of men, — of men, too, 
in the exercise of their own faculties, each evincing His pecu- 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 125 

liarities of education and thought. And yet there is often a 
something, almost indescribable, in the style and manner of the 
sacred writers, which shows that it is not altogether of men; 
that it carries with it the wisdom and the power of God. Wit- 
ness the ease and the certainty with which these writers announce 
their decisions on the deepest and most difficult subjects, — those 
farthest removed from the ordinary course of investigation and 
thought. Witness, also, the inexhaustible fulness, the unfail- 
ing suggestiveness, of the Sacred Writings. TThen read for the 

O DO ' ~ 

thousandth time, there is no palling upon the sense, or wearing 
out * but always a welling up of something new, showing a 
depth of meaning, like the Author, unsearchable. 

There is a peculiarity of manner in the sacred writers, when 
speaking of the faults of one another, or when describing the 
wicked actions of men. In either case there is no exaggeration 

DO 

or concealment, but a simple, unimpassioned annunciation of 
the truth. Thus, in recording Peter's denial of his Master, "we 
find no stern denunciation of the act, and no indignant allusion 
to its cowardice or ingratitude; but lighflv, as the glance of his 
Masters eye fell upon the smitten countenance of the wayward 
apostle, so the pen of the sacred writer just describes the occur- 
rence, and passes on." So also in recording the sufferings and 
death of Christ. "There is no strong expression of human 
sympathy accompanying the story of the agony in the garden, 
the awful scene before Pilate, or the horrors of the cross. Xo 
burst of emotion attends their Master's body to the tomb, or 
welcomes his resurrection ; and yet who has not felt that this 
treatment of their theme but adds to its pathos and its gran- 
deur?" 

The divinity of the style and manner of the sacred writers can 
be best appreciated, perhaps, by comparison. Let the intelligent 
and candid reader but step off from the sacred page of either 
Testament, and begin to traverse other writings of nearly the 
same period, — for instance, the apocryphal books of the Old 
Testament, or fhe works of Philo, Josephus, or the Christian 
Fathers, — and he will know what we mean when we speak of 
an indescribable something in the style and manner of the sacred 
penmen which indicates a wisdom that is from above. 



126 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

3. From the very nature of the case, a considerable portion 
of the Bible must be inspired; else it is palpable imposture. In 
no small part of the Old Testament we have God himself speak- 
ing in the first person. We have what purports to be his own 
words. And, if the Bible is true, they- are his own words ; and 
the sacred writers must have been verbally inspired in record- 
ing them. So in the Gospels, we have, through whole chapters, 
what purports to be the very words of Christ. Now, the writers 
of the Gospels may have been perfectly honest, but their mem- 
ories were treacherous ; and how could they be sure, after the* 
lapse of years, that they were giving the real words of Christ, 
unless they were guided and assisted from above ? Hence the 
value of that promise which was given to the disciples : " The 
Comforter, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall 
teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, 
whatsoever I have spoken unto you " (John xiv. 26). 

There are still other portions of the Bible which, if they are 
true, must be inspired. I refer to those parts in which the 
writer records transactions which took place long ages before he 
was. born. For example : How did Moses know what God said 
to Adam and Cain and ISToah and Abraham, and the other 
patriarchs, and what these men said in reply, unless he were 
under a divine inspiration? He might have received some 
general account of things by tradition ; but he does not profess 
to record doubtful traditions, but the very words which were 
spoken one way and the other. Yet, in order to this, he must 
have had a plenary, verbal inspiration. 

4. The sacred writers were commissioned of God to give 
utterance to his truth, and they had a promise, expressed or 
implied, of all needed assistance in their work. This was true 
of Moses. "Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and 
I will teach thee what thou shalt say" (Ex. iv. 12). Here we 
have both the commission and the promise, — an express prom- 
ise of plenary inspiration.. The same also was true of the other 
prophets. They were all sent — commissioned of God, and had 
a promise, expressed or implied, that he would be with them. 
"Thou, therefore," says God to Jeremiah, "gird up thy loins, ' 
and arise, and speak unto them all that I command thee. Be 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 127 

not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them. 
And they shall fight against thee, but they shall not prevail 
against thee ; for lam with thee, saith the Lord " ( Jer. i. 17, 19) . 
In similar language God commissioned Ezekiel, and sent him 
forth. "Son of man, I send thee to a rebellious nation, that 
hath rebelled against me. I do send thee unto them, and thou 
shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God. Be not afraid 
of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and* 
thorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions. 
Thou shalt speak my ivords unto them, whether they will hear, 
or whether they will forbear" (Ez. ii. 3-7). 

Jeremiah had an express commission from God, twice re- 
peated, not only to speak his words of warning and rebuke, 
but to write them in a booh. " Take thee a roll of a book, and 
write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against 
Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the 
day that I spoke unto thee, even unto this day." Jeremiah did 
as he was commanded ; and when the infatuated king of Judah 
had destroyed the record, the prophet was commissioned to 
write again. " Take thee another roll, and write in it all the 
words that were in. the first roll, which the king of Judah hath 
burnt" (Jer. xxxwi. 2, 28). 

The Apostle John was commissioned to write the book of 
Revelation ; and his commission was repeated, in respect to dif- 
ferent parts of it, no less than twelve times. The last two in- 
stances in which the commissions are repeated are particularly 
instructive in regard to the point before us. " Write, Blessed 
are they which are called unto the marriage-supper of the Lamb. 
And he said unto me, These are the true sayings of God." 
"And he that sat upon the throne said, Write; for these ivords 
are true and faithful." Who shall doubt, after declarations such 
as these, that John wrote the Revelation at the command and 
under the inspiration of God? (Rev. xix. 9 ; xxi. 5.) 

That the apostles acted under a commission from Christ, in 
going forth to publish his truth, no one can entertain a doubt. 
As much as this is implied in the very name that was given to 
them, — apostles, missionaries , men sent forth to a specific Avork. 
And that they had assurances of all needed support and assist- 



128 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ance, amounting to a plenary inspiration, is certain. "Lo, I 
am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." " I will 
give you a mouth and wisdom, which no adversary can gainsay 
or resist." " But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom 
the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, 
and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said 
unto you." "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall 
guide you into all truth. He shall glorify me ; for he shall re- 
ceive of mine, and shall show it unto you." "When they shall 
deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak ; 
for it shall be given you, in that same hour, what ye shall speak; 
for it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which 
speaketh in you." There is no mistaking the import of language 
such as this. We have here promise upon promise that the 
servants of Christ, in giving utterance to his truth, should be 
directed by an influence from on high. They should have the 
Spirit to guide them into all truth, and bring all things accu- 
rately to their remembrance. 

And now, if it be said that the promises here quoted refer 
rather to the work of teaching than writing, I answer, first, that 
this is not true of them all. In some instances inspired men 
were commissioned specifically to write. But- where the prom- 
ise does refer more directly to the work of teaching, we are not 
to regard it as confined to this. We may conclude, a fortiori, 
that it was intended to reach farther. For if inspired men 
stood in need of divine assistance in speaking the word to those 
immediately around them, much more did they need it in com- 
mitting this living word to writing, for the benefit of the church 
in all coming time. And that same good Beiug, who was so 
careful to meet their necessities in the former case, assuredly 
would not fail them in the latter. 

5. The writers of .both Testaments virtually claimed inspira- 
tion. This did Moses and the prophets continually. They 
came to the people with a " Thus saith the Lord; " and in many 
instances, through whole chapters, they profess to give the very 
words of the Most High ; a thing which they could never do 
unless these words were suggested to them at the time. 

David says of himself: " The Spirit of the Lord spake by 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 129 

me, and his word- was in my tongue" (2 Sam. xxiii. 2). " The 
Spirit entered into me" says Ezekiel, "when tie spake to me, 
and set me upon my feet, and I heard him that spake unto me " 
(Ez. ii. 2). 

The writers of the New Testament generally speak of their 
communications as the word of God, and thus virtually claim 
for themselves a divine inspiration. "It was necessary that the 
word of God should first have been spoken unto you." "They 
spake the word of God with boldness." "I certify you," says 
Paul, "that the gospel which was preached of me was not after 
man ; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, 
but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" "Which things we speak, 
not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy 
Ghost teacheth." " The things which I write unto you are the 
commandments of the Lord" The only question in regard to 
such passages is, Do the writers speak the truth? If they do, 
there can be no doubt as to the fact of their inspiration. 

6. The sacred writers not only claimed inspiration for them- 
selves, but they assert it one of another, and of the Scriptures 
generally. The titles which they give to the Sacred Writings are 
enough of themselves to prove their inspiration. They are not 
only the Scriptures, the writings, — which is itself a most signifi- 
cant title, — but they are "the holy Scriptures" "the Scriptures 
of truth" "the oracles of God" etc. This last is a peculiarly* 
expressive title, — the oracles of God. No one can doubt as to 
the design and use of the ancient oracles. Among the heathen 
they were the place where the voice of the god was heard — where 
his responses were sounded forth. Yet this most significant 
title is given by Paul to the entire canon of the Old Testament 
Scriptures. They are "the oracles of God" (Rom. iii. 2). 

Most of the Jewish prophets lived and wrote either during 
the captivity or before it. Let us now consult those of them 
who wrote after the captivity, and see how unequivocally they 
ascribe inspiration to the prophets who preceded them. " We 
have forsaken," says Ezra, "thy commandments, which thou 
hast commanded by thy servants the prophets" (Ez. ix. 10). 
"Yet many years," says Nehemiah, "didst thou forbear thern, 
and testifiedst against them by thy Spirit in thy prophets" (Neh. 
17 



130 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ix. 30). "They made their hearts," says Zechariah, "like an 
adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words 
which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his Spirit by the former 
prophets" (Zech. vii. 12). In passages such as these, to which 
many of like import might be added, the inspiration of the 
earlier prophets is most expressly asserted. 

Our Saviour uniformly speaks of the Scriptures — meaning, 
of course, the Old Testament Scriptures — as the Word of God, 
and inspired. Addressing the Sadducees, he says : "Have ye 
not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am 
the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of 
Jacob?" "The Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of David," etc. 
"Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet," etc. " The 
word of God cannot be broken" (John x. 35). "Making the 
word of God of none effect by your traditions" (Mark vii. 
12). 

Paul thus testifies on the point before us : " All scripture is 
given by inspiration of God" "The prophecy came not in old 
time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost." " God, who at sundry times 
and in divers manners, spake in time past by the prophets, hath 
in these latter days spoken unto us by his Son." Nothing can 
be more decisive than this testimony. If language such as this 
'does not prove the inspiration of the Bible, no language can. 
I only add— 

7. The full inspiration of the Scriptures has been the doctrine 
of the church in all periods of its history. Nothing further need 
be said to show that the sacred writers, both before and after 
Christ, held this doctrine. We have seen that they had the 
promise of inspiration ; that they claimed it ; and that they assert 
it of the Scriptures in general, and of one another. But how 
was the doctrine held by learned Jews, between the closing of 
the canon of the Old Testament and the opening of the New? 
And how by the early Christian Fathers? Looking into the 
apocryphal books of the Old Testament, we find the following 
prayer in Baruch : "O Lord our God, ... as thou speakedst 
to thy servant Moses in the day that thou didst command him to 
write thy laiv." In Ecclesiasticus, the law of Moses is spoken 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 131 

of as " the covenant of the Most High" which " covenant is 
everlasting," its "light uncorrupt," and its "decrees eternal." 

Philo entertained the most extravagant ideas of inspiration, 
representing the subject of it as unconscious, his spirit being 
controlled by the indwelling Spirit of God. The prophet, for 
the time, is like "an instrument moved invisibly by God's 
power." All his utterances proceed from the suggestions of 
another. The prophetic rapture having overcome his faculties, 
the Divine Spirit takes full possession of him, dwells in him, 
and moves the entire organism of speech, prompting to the 
announcement of all that he foretells. 

Such were the views of Philo as to the inspiration of the 
prophets. Those of Josephus were much the same. He speaks 
of the books of Scripture as "divine" "It is implanted in 
every Jew, from the hour of his birth, to esteem these books as 
the ordinances of God; to stand fast by them; and in defence 
of them, if need be, to die." 

With regard to the faith of the early Christians on this sub- 
ject, we can have no better evidence than their creeds. The 
creed of Irenseus commences thus : "The church, though it be 
dispersed over all the earth, has received from the apostles the 
belief in one God, the Father ; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son 
of God ; and in the Holy Ghost, who spake by the prophets." 
In the Mcene Creed, as completed by the Council of Constanti- 
nople, we have the following : " We believe in the Holy Ghost, 
the Lord and Giver of life, who proceecleth from the Father, 
who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified, and 
who spake by the prophets." 

Clement of Rome, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians 
(chap. 45), says: "Give diligent heed to the Scriptures, the 
true sayings of the Holy Ghost." 

Justin Martyr says : " Think not that the words which you 
hear the prophet speaking in his own person are uttered by 
himself. Being filled by the Spirit, they are from the Divine 
Logos which moves him" (Apol. i. 336). 

"The Sacred Books," says Origen, "breathe the fulness of the 
Spirit. There is nothing, either in the law, in the gospels, or 



132 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

in the apostles, which did not descend from the fulness of the 
Divine Majesty" (Works, Yol. iii. p. 282). 

"It is needless to inquire," says Gregory the Great, "who 
wrote the book of Job ; since we may surely believe that the 
Holy Ghost was its author" (Works, Yol. i. p. 7). 

" What avails it," says Theodoret, " to know whether all the 
Psalms were written by David ? it being plain that all were com- 
posed under the influence of the Holy Spirit" (Works, Yol. i. 
p. 395). 

It is needless to quote further from the early Christian Fathers. 
They were unanimous on the subject of inspiration, and took 
high ground in regard to it. They commonly spoke of the 
Scriptures as "the law of God," "the word of God," "the 
voice of God," "the oracles of Heaven," "the oracles of the 
Holy Ghost;" as "dictated by the Spirit of God;" as "the 
doctrine of the Holy Ghost." Borrowing the figure from Philo, 
they not unfrequently compare the soul of the prophet, when 
under the divine influence, to an instrument of music, into 
which the Holy Spirit breathes, and on the strings of which he 
strikes. They even represent those as infidels "who do not 
believe that the Holy Ghost uttered the divine Scriptures " 
(Euseb., Book Y. Chap. 28). 

But this blessed doctrine of inspiration, so dear to the church 
in its earliest and purest times, is doubted of by many at the 
present day. A variety of objections have been urged against 
it, which, before we close, it will be necessary briefly to 
examine. 

1. It has been objected to the inspiration of the apostles, that 
they were imperfect men, — ignorant, envious, prejudiced, and 
sometimes at variance among themselves. It is true that the 
apostles, more especially in the early part of their ministry, were 
not what they should be. They were imperfect men; and so 
were all the sacred writers. But this does not militate against 
the fact of their inspiration. No one supposes them to have 
been inspired at all times, in their daily intercourse with each 
other, and with their fellow-men. It was only while employed 
in giving utterance to the truth of God, either in teaching or 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 133 

writing, that they needed inspiration, or enjoyed the gift. And 
thus far they might be inspired, notwithstanding any remaining 
defects of character. 

2. It has been objected to the idea of a plenary inspiration, 
that there are great differences of style in different parts of the 
Bible, — each individual seeming to write and speak in his own 
peculiar, natural way. And so, on the theory of inspiration 
which we adopt, we might suppose it would be. If, as some 
have believed, the sacred writers, while under the influence of 
the Spirit, had been deprived of the regular exercise of their 
own powers, so as to be mere passive instruments, in the hands 
of God, there would be some reason for connecting the idea of 
inspiration with great uniformity in point of style. But if, as 
we hold, they were left to the natural exercise of their own 
powers, while they were instructed, guided, superintended by 
the Spirit, and led by him to write that, and only that, which 
was agreeable to his will, then the differences of style which 
appear in their writings are no objection to the idea of their 
inspiration. They are just what might reasonably be expected. 

That these differences of style are consistent with even a 
verbal inspiration, is evident from the Scriptures themselves. 
In many parts of Scripture, as before remarked, we find God 
speaking in his own person. Whole chapters of this nature 
occur not unfrequently in the prophets. Now, in such chapters 
there must have been a verbal inspiration. The very words 
must have been suggested to the minds of the writers. And yet 
w T e find the same differences of style here as in the other parts 
of the Sacred Writings. God, speaking in his own person by 
the mouth of Hosea or Amos, adopts the style of these men ; 
but when speaking by the mouth of Isaiah or Joel, he adopts 
the higher and more poetical diction of these prophets. 

3. The proof of inspiration, we have seen, rests mainly on the 
testimony of the sacred writers. Now, it has been objected that 
these writers, when under the influence of the Spirit, may not 
have been conscious of his presence with them, and consequently 
were not prepared to give a valid testimony in the case. But it 
is evident from the Scriptures that the sacred writers did know 
when they were under the inspiration of the Spirit. They were 



134 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

not in the Spirit at all times ; and when the inspiration was upon 
them, and God was speaking by them, they must have known 
it. Did not Moses know when God met him, and gave him his 
messages to Pharaoh? Did he not know, when he was writing 
out the law, that he was writing God's words, and not his own? 
And when it is said so many times over by the prophets, "The 
word of the Lord came unto me," did they not know whereof 
they affirmed? 

Of the particular state of the prophets' minds, while under the 
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, we can have no accurate concep- 
tion, having had no experience or knowledge of the same. Per- 
haps they were not all affected in the same way. But that there 
was a peculiarity about their state, of which they were fully 
conscious, and which enabled them to give a decided and valid 
testimony, there can be no doubt. "I am full of power," says 
the prophet Micah, "by the Spirit of the Lord, and of judgment, 
and of might, to- declare unto Jacob his transgression, and. unto 
Israel his sin" (Mich. iii. 8). Jeremiah resolved, on one occa- 
sion, that he would not again make mention of the Lord, or 
speak any more in his name. "But his word," says he, "was 
in my heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones. I was weary 
with forbearing, and I could not stay." On another occasion 
Jeremiah says, "I am full of the fury of the Lord ; I am weary 
with holding in ; I will pour it out upon the children, and upon 
the assembly of young men" (Jer. vi. 11; xx. 9). Ezekiel 
also says, "The Spirit lifted me up, and took me away; and I 
went in bitterness, in the heat of my spirit ; but the hand of the 
Lord was strong upon me" (Ez. iii. 14). We see-, in these 
scriptures, how little reason there is to call in question the tes- 
timony of the sacred writers, on the ground that they did not 
know when they were inspired, or whether they were inspired 
or not. 

4. It has been thought by some that this whole question of 
inspiration amounts to but little, since we have naught in our 
hands at present but transcripts and translations, the original 
copies, which alone were inspired, having long been lost. But 
we do think it of great importance to have had an inspired and 
infallible original. From such an original all the existing copies 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 135 

and versions came ; and though we have not the autographs with 
which to compare them, still, we can compare them one with 
another ; we can judge of differences where they exist ; we can 
judge wherein they differ, if at all, from the original copies ; 
and can thus approximate, at least, to the true standard. The 
original copies of the ancient classics have all passed away ; yet 
we like to know that there were such copies, and by careful 
revision, comparison, and criticism, we can measurably restore 
them. 

A copy of the Scriptures, or a version, is a proper subject of 
criticism^ We may properly inquire, not whether the original 
writers made mistakes, but whether mistakes have not occurred 
since ; whether the copy or the version conforms to the origi- 
nal. Thus far may human criticism lawfully go in this direc- 
tion, but no farther. If it may transcend this limit ; if it may 
go to the original itself, or to what is decided, on sufficient 
grounds, to have been the original, to pass upon mistakes and 
errors there, — then we have no standard left. The criticism of 
copies and versions has come to be a science of well-defined 
principles, which has been rewarded with most important re- 
sults. "But," as one has well said, "the criticism of prophets 
and apostles, the sitting in judgment upon those who preached 
and wrote by inspiration, and to whom the Spirit of God 
brought all things to remembrance — this is a new science, one 
upon which we do not care to venture, and the results of which 
we should distrust and dread." 

5. It is objected to the idea that "all scripture is given by 
inspiration of God," that there are things of small importance 
in the Bible, — things not worthy to be inspired. But we are 
not suitable judges, always, as to the comparative greatness or 
smallness of events. Things may seem small to us which, in 
their connections, are of vast importance. Great effects flow 
often from little causes. A spark of fire is a very little thing, 
but it may result in an explosion or a conflagration. "The 
cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, 
bring with thee, and the books ; but especially the parchments." 
No one can tell, at this day, of how great importance it may 



136 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

have been to Paul, a close prisoner at Kome, to get his cloak, 
his books, and his parchments. 

But, granting that there are small things in the Bible, do we 
not find the same in nature? Yet who would conclude, from 
the existence of insects and animalcules, that God was not the 
author of nature? The resemblance, in this respect, between 
the Bible and nature, rather indicates that both may have pro- 
ceeded from the same hand. 

6. It is said that there are indelicate expressions, vulgarities 
in the Bible, which forbid the idea that it should all have been 
inspired. ( But are we fully competent to judge in regard to this 
matter ? Shall we set ourselves up as the standard of delicacy 
for all ages and people? In regard to this matter, like most 
others, the notions of people vary in different places and at 
different times. What would be sufficieutly delicate to an 
Oriental now, and would have been so regarded by our own 
fathers and mothers two hundred years ago, may strike us 
differently. Besides, words and phrases often become indeli- 
cate as they become common ; and there is a necessity for 
changing them for those which are less common. But here is 
a book, of which the words and phrases, as they stand in the 
original, must never be changed. They must remain the same 
in all periods of time. This, doubtless, is a principal reason 
why some few of the words of Scripture, to a modern ear, may 
seem indelicate. 

7. It is further objected that there is false philosophy in the 
Bible. It speaks of the sun's rising and setting and standing 
still. It represents the firmament as a shining canopy over our 
heads, and the opaque moon as one of the lights of heaven. To 
this it is enough to reply, that the Bible was not designed to 
teach us philosophy. It is not a book of natural science. In 
describing natural, visible objects, the writers were directed, 
and for the best reasons, to speak phenomenally ; to use the cur- 
rent phraseology of the times ; to write according to invariable 
appearances, without any philosophical theory whatever. And 
we should as soon think of charging a writer with falsehood 
now, who should speak of the sun's rising and setting, and of 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 137 

the moon as one of the lights of heaven, as to prefer the like 
charge against Moses, and insist that he could not have been 
inspired because such a phraseology occurs in his writings . 

8. It is still further objected that there are contradictions in 
the Bible. That there are a few seeming inconsistencies, — 
passages which, with our means of knowledge, we may not be 
able fully to harmonize — need not be denied. But that there 
were any real contradictions in the original Scriptures, as they 
came from God, is what no believer in divine inspiration can 
admit, and no denier of it can prove. We speak advisedly on 
this subject, having had occasion, within the last few months, to 
examine most, if not all, the cases which have been alleged, 1 
Some are the result, obviously, of mistake in transcribing, 
translating, or interpreting ; while others arise from our igno- 
rance of attendant circumstances, and might at once be harmon- 
ized if these were fully known. With regard to alleged con- 
tradictions in the Bible, most heartily do we acquiesce in the 
following declaration of Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho : 
"I dare not either imagine or assert that the Scriptures contra- 
dict each other ; but were any passage adduced which had the 
appearance of being opposed to another, being altogether per- 
suaded that no such opposition really exists, I will rather confess 
that I do not myself understand what is said" (chap. lxv. p. 
162). 

9. It has been objected to the inspiration of the New Testa- 
ment, that its writers sometimes make quotations from the Old 
Testament incorrectly, and apply them improperly. They do 
not always quote with strict verbal accuracy, nor do they pre- 
tend to ; but we see not how this can be urged against either 
their inspiration or their truth. How often do we thus quote 
from the Scriptures, and from other books, without any im- 
peachment of veracity ! 

Nor do the writers of the New Testament always apply the 
language quoted from the Old according to its original and lit- 
eral acceptation. In some few instances they adopt this lan- 
guage as a phraseology familiar to them, in which to express 
and enforce their thoughts ; just as the classical scholar sorne- 

» See Christian Review for July, 1858, pp. 390-415. 
18 



138 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

times incorporates a passage from his favorite author, without 
stopping to inquire whether his application of it is precisely 
according to the original intent. It is to his purpose, he adopts 
it, and passes on. To the apostles and evangelists, the Old 
Testament was almost their only classic. Its language was dear 
and familiar to them. They were literally men of one book. 
And from this loved book they, in some few instances, take a 
passage or a clause, because it is apposite and illustrative, with- 
out pretending to apply it just as it was applied by the original 
writer. Now, we see nothing in this which is at all inconsistent 
with their good character, or their inspiration. It is to be un- 
derstood, of course, that the language thus quoted becomes, by 
its adoption, the language of inspiration, and carries with it a 
divine authority. 

10. The imprecations of David are sometimes urged as an 
objection to the doctrine of inspiration. But, so far from being 
an objection, we know not how to account for these imprecations, 
in the connections in which they stand, and in consistency with 
the acknowledged good character of David, but by supposing 
him inspired. If he spoke of his own mind and heart, and 
mingled up his imprecations, as we sometimes find them, with 
the highest strains of devotional feeling, this certainly was very 
strange. It was unaccountable. But when we regard him as 
an inspired prophet of God, — standing in the place of God ; 
the visible head, under God, of the theocracy ; and denouncing, 
by divine inspiration, the judgments of God against the enemies 
of his church and people, — the case assumes a very different 
aspect. The inspiration of the writer, instead of creating a 
difficulty, relieves one. The mystery of the case is in great 
measure removed. 

11. It is said, finally, that Paul, in some places, expressly 
disclaims a divine inspiration : " To the rest speak I, not the 
Lord, If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she 
be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." " Con- 
cerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I 
give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy" (1 Cor. 
vii. 12, 25). In these passages the apostle disclaims, as it 
seems to me, not divine inspiration, but his having any express 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 139 

divine command to be enforced. He was not inspired to lay 
positive injunctions upon the Corinthians, in respect to these mat- 
ters, as from God, but rather to give his judgment, his advice. 
"Herein I give my advice," etc. He also tells us that lie thinks 
he has the Spirit (1 Cor. vii. 40). And if Paul thought that he 
had the Spirit, who shall say or think that he had not? 

There is another passage which is sometimes quoted to dis- 
prove the inspiration of Paul. "That which I speak, I speak 
not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of 
boasting" (2 Cor. xi. 17). The apostle here speaks, not after 
the Lord; that is, not after the Lord's example, not after the 
usual manner of the Lord, without disclaiming at all a divine 
inspiration. He may have been plenarily inspired, and yet not 
speak after the usual manner of the Lord. 

The full inspiration of the Scriptures, as here explained, 
proved, and vindicated, is a doctrine of great practical import- 
ance. It is so at all times, but more especially at this time, 
when such insidious and persevering efforts are made to wrest it 
from us. If the Bible is not inspired in the sense explained, it' 
it is not all inspired, then it is not an infallible standard of truth 
and duty, and nothing can be certainly known or established by 
it. We may think it a good book, a remarkable book, the work 
of good and honest men ; and yet, if not inspired, it is marked 
with imperfections, of which its readers must judge for them- 
selves. We may believe that it contains revelations from God ; 
but if it is not an inspired book, if it is not all inspired, then 
who shall tell us what particular parts are inspired, and what 
not*; how much to receive as the word of God, and how much 
to impute to the ignorance or the device of man? One passage 
may seem unreasonable to me, and I may reject it, as constitut- 
ing no part of the revelation. For the same reason, my neigh- 
bor may reject another passage. In this way the whole Bible 
may be rejected by one or another, while it is professedly re- 
ceived. Most of the old English infidels professed to respect 
the Bible, and to receive certain portions of it as from God, 
while they adopted principles which went to undermine and 
destroy it as a rule of life. 

If the Bible is not inspired, even as to its lansruaije, then it 



140 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

does not come to us duly authenticated, as the word and the law 
of God. In all authoritative communications or laws, it is im- 
portant that we have the precise words of the lawgiver. So it 
is with human laws. The judge on the bench must have the 
precise words of the law, or he cannot interpret them. The 
people, too, must have the law correctly before them, or they 
cannot tell what it requires. Suppose one of our legislatures 
should undertake to frame a code of laws, but instead of writing 
them down themselves, or causing them to be written under 
their own inspection, should leave it to the reporters, in differ- 
ent parts of the house, to take down the substance, or so much 
of them as they could recollect, and publish them in the news- 
papers. These reporters might be honest and capable men ; 
and yet, who would regard their notes as laws? Who could 
determine whether they had been correctly reported, or whether 
they expressed the real sense of the legislature ? 

In matters such as these, we want, I repeat, the matured words 
of the lawgiver. And just so in respect to the Bible. The 
Bible purports to be a code of laws, coming down to us from 
the great Lawgiver of the universe, and binding directly on 
our consciences and hearts. But, in order that it may be duly 
authenticated, — maybe a rule of life to us here and of judgment 
hereafter, — we must have the very words of God. A merely 
human record of his truth and will cannot bind us. We must 
have a Bible, the whole of which is given by the inspiration of 
God, or we have no standard by which to walk, or on which to 
rely. 



THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 141 



LECTURE XI. 

THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 

Before dismissing our inquiries in regard to the Scriptures, 
it may be well to devote a few moments to the general subject 
of interpretation. "The creed of the Christian," says the author 
of the Natural History of Enthusiasm, "is the fruit of exposi- 
tion. To ascertain the true meaning of the words and phrases 
used by those who spake as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost, is the single aim of the studies of the theologian. Inter- 
pretation is his sole function." Though the language here used is 
strong, and may require some qualification, yet it conveys much 
truth. The science of interpretation, more especially in its 
application to the Sacred Writings, is one of paramount import- 
ance. True, this science, like many other good things, has been 
abused ; yet this is no valid argument against its legitimate us£. 
Let it be employed, as it ever should be, faithfully, honestly, and 
in the fear of God, and Christians have nothing to apprehend 
from it. It can be productive of no other than good results. 

All Protestants profess to receive the Bible as capable of 
being understood, and as their sole and sufficient rule of faith 
and duty. Hence all are interested alike to understand the 
Bible; to apply to it correct principles of interpretation, as 
they would to any other book ; and ascertain what is really 
"the mind of the Spirit." 

In discussing the subject before us, let me call your attention 
to the three following propositions : 

I. There are established principles of interpreting language, 
which all men continually apply, and by which they abide, on 
ordinary subjects. 

II. These principles are strangely departed from by many in 
interpreting the Bible. 



142 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

III. It is of the last importance that we adhere to them, in 
their application to the Bible, as well as to other books. 

I design not here to go into a scientific statement and illus- 
tration of the established principles of interpretation. These 
can be best studied in books appropriated to the subject. A 
moment's thought will satisfy any person that there are such 
principles, and that, whether conscious of it or not, men contin- 
ually apply them, and abide by the application. Your neighbor 
comes to you with some interesting article of intelligence. He 
tells his story ; you understand, him ; you make reply, and he 
understands you. But how is this done, unless you and he have 
some common principles of interpreting language, which both 
(perhaps unconsciously) apply, and by the application of which 
you both abide? Or you receive a letter from an absent friend. 
You read and understand it ; and you return an answer, which 
he reads and understands. Here, again, is an instance in which 
you both apply some known and established principles of inter- 
pretation, and in which you abide by the application. But if 
your friend should write you that he was dangerously sick, and 
you should insist that this meant that he was very poor in point 
of property, or in a very melancholy state of mind, and should 
return answer accordingly, you and he would in this case fail 
of applying common principles of interpreting language ; and 
you can easily conceive of the surprise which would follow. 

One of your neighbors, for a satisfactory consideration, gives 
you a deed of a valuable piece of land. You understand it 
perfectly, and so does he, and both are satisfied ; but this is 
only because you both interpret the instrument according to 
some common and established principles. Should your neigh- 
bor depart from these principles, and insist that the deed to 
you and your heirs forever meant only a lease for a limited 
period, contention and confusion would be the consequence. 

Take another instance : A number of you agree to form a 
society for the promotion of some favorite object. You adopt a 
constitution, the stipulations of which you all understand, and 
by which all consent to be governed. Here, again, you have 
applied common principles of interpretation, and expect to abide 
by the application. But suppose, on experiment, that one of 



THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 143 

the members understands the most important article in the, con- 
stitution in a manner very different from the rest of you. He 
has assented to the article, and is willing to assent; but, then, 
he insists that he has a right to put his own meaning upon the 
terms, and his meaning is just the opposite of yours. Here, 
again, you have no common principles of interpretation, and the 
result, as before, is contention and confusion. 

These familiar illustrations, the number of which might be 
increased indefinitely, may serve to show that there are estab- 
lished principles of interpreting language, which are sufficiently 
understood, and in common concerns are continually applied. 
Without them we could not hold conversation with our families, 
or correspond with absent friends, or transact the most neces- 
sary affairs of life. Without them society could not be formed ; 
or, if formed, the frame of it could not be held together. In- 
deed, without established principles of interpreting language, 
we might as well have no language, as the power of holding 
intercourse by means of it would be taken away. 

These principles are essentially the same in all languages. 
Their object is to fix and settle the meaning of the words and 
phrases which go to constitute a discourse. In cases of doubt, 
they require us to take into consideration the nature of the sub- 
ject discussed ; the connection in which the questionable words 
occur; the purposes, feelings, circumstances, and opinions of 
the writer or speaker ; and the genius and idioms of the lan- 
guage which he uses ; and by all these means to judge impar- 
tially and truly as to the sense intended to be conveyed ; — not 
what we wish the sense to be, or think it ought to be, but what 
it is. 

My second proposition is, that from these established princi- 
ples of interpreting language, which all sufficiently understand, 
which all apply in common life, and which constitute the very 
basis of social intercourse, numbers strangely depart in inter- 
preting the Bible. Some do this in accommodation to their 
'wishes. They wish to polish and improve what appears to 
them the rough features of the Bible,— to round off its sharp 
points, to soften down the strictness of its requisitions and the 
harshness of its threatenings ; to remove in a measure its severe 



144 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

restraints. They wish it to speak a somewhat different language 
from that which appears upon the open face of it ; and they 
flatter themselves, at length, that it does speak a different lan- 
guage ; that a softer and more palatable meaning may be put 
upon the terms. 

Some depart from established principles, in interpreting the 
Bible, in accommodation to their delinquencies. If the Bible 
means what it seems to mean, they fall greatly and fearfully 
short of it, and have reason to feel themselves reproved and 
alarmed. But such feelings are not comfortable ; they wish to 
be rid of them ; and what is to be done ? To bring their char- 
acters up to the strict demands of the Bible, they are not willing ; 
and consequently an effort must be made to bring the Bible down 
to them. And after much ingenious labor, perhaps they think 
they have succeeded. " The Bible does not require so much as 
it seems to require. It does not threaten so severely as it 
seems to threaten. The standard is not so high as at first view 
it appears. What would be discouraging and terrifying, if in- 
terpreted strictly, may, by a little necessary qualification, be 
made a very comfortable rule of life." 

Persons sometimes depart from established principles, in inter- 
preting the Bible, in accommodation to their systems. Their 
system of religion is already established. It is, in their view, 
complete and perfect. Nothing can be added to it, and nothing 
taken from it. And they go to the Bible, not so much to ascer- 
tain what it really means, as to bring it to an accordance w T ith 
their preconceived views. And with this object before them, the 
declarations of Scripture are of little force. For if too long, 
they can be easily shortened ; or if too short, they can be pro- 
longed. The Bible must be made to conform to their systems, 
and not their systems to conform to the Bible. 

Others depart from established principles, in interpreting the 
Bible, from a disposition to lean to their oivn understandings. 
They think themselves capable of determining not only what 
the Bible means, but what it ought to mean. > And if it does not 
seem to mean what, in their judgment, it ought to mean, then 
it must be made to conform to their judgment. It must be nar- 



THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 145 

rowed or widened, prolonged or curtailed, till it comes to speak 
a language which seems to them reasonable. 

In the respects here alluded to, persons do not treat any other 
book or writing as they treat the Bible. If they did, they might 
wrest it as easily as the Bible ; and they would have no more 
reason to find fault with it than they now pretend to have to 
find fault with the Bible. For example, the Bible ascribes to 
our Lord Jesus Christ the names, the attributes, the works, and 
the worship of the Supreme Being. He is repeatedly called God 
and Jehovah. He is said to know ail things, to have made all 
things, to uphold all things, and to be an object of worship to 
saints on earth, and to angels in heaven. But some men apply 
principles of interpretation to the Bible by which they satisfy 
themselves that this does not prove, or mean, that Christ is a 
divine person ; that it is all very consistent with his being no 
more than a mortal man. Now, let these persons take these 
same principles of interpretation, which they apply to the Bible, 
and by which they bring out this result, and apply them to the 
Athanasian Creed, or the Assembly's Catechism, and they might 
prove just as well that neither of these formularies teach the 
proper divinity of Christ. The same glosses and interpretations 
which would take the divinity of Christ out of the Bible, would 
take it out of any Trinitarian Creed or publication in the world. 

Again : the inspired writers have much to say respecting the 
devil and his angels. They speak of fallen spirits as real beings, 
who have long been concerned in the affairs of this world, from 
whom we have much to fear, and against whom it becomes us 
to watch and to strive. But some persons apply principles of 
interpretation to the Bible, by which they satisfy themselves that 
there is no devil, and that the Bible does not teach the existence 
of any such being. Now I fearlessly aver, if the Bible does not 
teach the doctrine of fallen spirits, no other book, interpreted 
after the same manner, does teach it, or can teach it. The 
same principles of interpretation that would take this doctrine 
out of the Bible, would take it out of any other book that ever 
was written, or can be written. 

Take another example. The Bible teaches the endless pun- 
ishment of the wicked, — that they "shall go away into everlast- 

19 



146 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ing punishment ; " that they shall " depart accursed into ever- 
lasting fire," where "their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
quenched," and where "the smoke of their torment ascendeth 
up for ever and ever." But some persons apply principles of 
interpretation to the Bible, by which they satisfy themselves that 
this language does not mean that the wicked shall be punished 
forever, or that they shall be punished at all in the future world. 
Everlasting signifies a limited duration; the ivorm, \kQJire, the 
punishment are the afflictions of this life ; and hell means only 
the valley of Hinnom — a smoking, polluted valley near Jerusa- 
lem. Now, it is remarkable that these principles of interpreta- 
tion which, when applied to the Bible, make it teach universal 
salvation, if applied to any other work in favor of future punish- 
ment, would cause it to teach the same doctrine. Take, for 
instance, President Edwards' sermon on " The Eternity of Hell 
Torments." The same modes of interpretation which would 
make the Bible a Universalist book, would make this a Univer- 
salist sermon. The eternity of hell torments : what does this 
mean ? Why, eternity means a limited duration ; and hell tor- 
ments denote certain pains and penalties which were once en- 
dured in the valley of Hinnom. There is nothing, therefore, in 
the title of this sermon, or in- the sermon itself, interpreted after 
this manner, which need offend the ear of the most sensitive 
Universalist. 

Believers in the doctrine of universal salvation are sometimes 
displeased when they hear eternal punishment insisted on from 
the pulpit. But why displeased ? What is eternal punishment, 
according to their interpretation of these Scripture terms? It 
means nothing more than temporal sufferings, — the afflictions of 
this life ; and surely they ought to be willing to hear of the 
afflictions of the present life. 

I make these remarks not to throw lightness over a serious 
and awful subject, but to expose the miserable, trifling manner 
in which maiiy persons allow themselves to treat the Holy Bible ; 
to show how differently they interpret the Bible from what they 
do any other book or language. Let any other book be tortured, 
as the Bible is, to bring it into conformity to the interests, the 
inclinations, and the prejudices of men, and it may be tortured 






THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 147 

as easily as the Bible. Let the language of common life be 
subjected to the same ordeal, and it would cease to be intelli- 
gible language, and a social intercourse through the medium of 
it would no longer be possible. 

The way is now prepared to urge, in the third place, the im- 
portance of adopting, and adhering to, the same principles of 
interpretation in regard to the Bible which we apply to ordinary 
language and to other books. The Bible was written, not for 
the benefit of the learned and critical only, but for the plain and 
common reader. It was made, therefore, a plain book ; and 
was designed to be interpreted in a plain, common-sense way, 
according to the ordinary use of language. Such being the 
case, unless the Bible is interpreted in this way, it is virtually 
altered. There are two ways in which the Bible may be altered. 
The one is by literally adding to it, or taking from it ; the 
other is by suffering its contents to remain, and misinterpreting 
them : and there are many persons who would not dare attempt 
the former, who very readily perpetrate the latter. Here is a 
passage which, in its plain, obvious meaning, teaches a particu- 
lar doctrine. If, now, instead of receiving this doctrine, I mis- 
interpret the passage, and put quite another construction upon 
it, what do I better than though I had first blotted out the pas- 
sage, and then written down another, according to my own 
views ? The mere words and letters of a verse in the Bible are 
of no importance, separate from the meaning. If, then, by 
false interpretation, I alter the meaning, I am chargeable with 
altering the Bible, although the words and letters may remain 
the same. 

In our previous Lectures we have been considering the evi- 
dences of divine revelation, and thus fortifying the Bible against 
the assaults of open enemies. All this is well, so far as it goes ; 
but it does not meet altogether the exigencies of the present 
time. Our great danger, at this day, is not so much that of an 
open rejection of the Bible, — of having its chapters and verses 
literally torn from us, — as of having its sense, its true meaning 
taken away, and a false one substituted. Give to the enemies 
of the Bible all the latitude of interpretation which they desire, 
and not the most virulent among them ever need be an avowed 



148 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Infidel. Not one among them ever would take the name of infi- 
del, so long as it was for his credit and interest to avoid it. The 
work of interpreting the Holy Scriptures is a vastly responsible 
work ; while the sin of misinterpreting, and so altering them, 
is a very heinous sin. Our only safety in this respect is to be 
honest ; take the Bible as it is ; apply to it the plain principles 
of interpretation, as we would to any other book, and then 
abide the result. Yes, whether it accords with our systems, 
our wishes, our prejudices, or not, we must abide the result. 

The importance of so treating the Bible will further appear 
if we consider that this is the only way in which Christians can 
ever be brought to anything like a uniformity of religious senti- 
ment. Why is it that persons do not differ as widely respecting 
the doctrines of Pelagius, or Augustine, or Calvin, or Socinus, 
as respecting the doctrines of the Bible? Not because these 
authors wrote more explicitly and plainly than the inspired pen- 
men. This is not the reason. But human authors are not rer 
garded as of binding authority. Hence, if persons do not like 
them, they may reject them, and forfeit nothing. They have 
no temptations, therefore, to misinterpret them. And the con- 
sequence is, that nearly all readers, whether they approve them 
or not, interpret and understand them alike. 1 Now, let persons 
go to the Bible in the same way, with no end in view but simply 
to understand it ; let them apply to it the same general princi- 
ples of interpretation as they would to any other book ; and in 
nearly every case they would come to the same conclusions 
respecting its import. They might differ in regard to some 
small matters, which distance of time and place had rendered 

1 Two classes of facts may Ibe adduced, showing that the true reason for the differences 
of opinion which are entertained respecting the import of the Bible has been here assigned. 
The first is, that those persons who have cast off the Bible, so as no longer to consider it 
of binding authority, — as, for instance, the old English Deists, and the German Ration- 
alists, — have usually understood it much in the same manner, and in the sense, of the 
Orthodox. Thus Bolingbroke says, "These doctrines of Calvin are certainly the doc- 
trines of the Bible ; and if I believe the Bible, I must believe them." And Prof. Gabler 
says, " An impartial view of Biblical theology, as a history of the doctrines of the New 
Testament, must, in its nature, be pretty much orthodox." The second class of facts to 
which I refer is, that other writings, when they come to be held as of binding authority, 
are as variously interpreted as the Bible. Witness the Articles of the Church of England, 
respecting which the members of that church are quite as far from being agreed as they 
are respecting the Book of God. 



THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 149 

obscure ; but, in all essential points, the generality of Chris- 
tians would be agreed, and uniformity of sentiment would be 
restored. 

And this, it is believed, is the only way in which it ever will 
or can be restored. While persons go to the Bible encumbered 
with their prejudices, and determined to make it speak accord- 
ing to their preconceived views, it is impossible that they should 
understand it, or be agreed respecting it. For, going to the 
Bible in this way, the reader directly encounters passages which, 
in their plain meaning, are offensive to him. "If this verso 
means what it seems to say, what will become of my favorite 
system? I must change my sentiments, change my meeting, 
and incur the reproach of joining some other denomination, or 
I must put some other meaning upon this strange verse of the 
Bible." As he reads on he finds, perhaps, another passage 
which censures and condemns his course of life. " This sen- 
tence, as it reads, is too strict for me. I cannot live up to it. 
It would seem to make me a great sinner, which surely I am 
not ; and therefore some other meaning must be given to it." 
As this man reads farther, he meets, it may be, with still 
greater difficulties. He meets with passages which represent 
him as not in a safe condition. He is in absolute danger of 
losing his soul. " But this cannot be true ; the Bible does not 
mean so ; " and hence some other interpretation must be put 
upon the words. 

Now, this is but a specimen of the manner in which many 
persons allow themselves to treat the Holy Bible ; and, treating 
it in this way, there is no difficulty in seeing why they do not 
understand it alike. How should they understand it alike, un- 
less they all agreed to misinterpret it, and to do it after the 
same manner? The Bible is sufficiently plain in its annuncia- 
tions, — as plain as any religious book; and if all who read it 
would go to it with simplicity of purpose, with the intent to 
understand its meaning, and would apply to it the ordinary 
principles of interpretation, as they do to other books, they 
could not essentially misunderstand it, and would soon be 
agreed respecting it, 

But especially is it to be remembered that this is the only 



150 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

safe mode of treating the Bible. The Bible, as I have before 
shown, is a revelation from God; and however it may be re- 
garded by us, it will stand. "The unbelief of men cannot 
make the Word of God of no effect ; " and no more can the 
false interpretations of men make the Word of God of no effect. 
We may think that we have set aside a passage of Scripture, in 
accommodation to our views and wishes ; but we deceive our- 
selves in this respect. The passage stands just as it did before, 
and we must abide by it, whether we will or no. We may 
think the requisitions of the Bible too strict, or its denuncia- 
tions too terrible, and may endeavor to soften them in accomo- 
dation to our feelings. But the requisitions of the Bible must 
stand, and by them we must be tried and judged, whether we 
live up to them or not. And the denunciations of the Bible 
must stand, and impenitent triflers feel all their dreadful import, 
whether they believe them or not. It is, then, our wisdom, 
our duty, our safety, to take the Bible as it is ; receive it in its 
obvious meaning, however severely it may reprove or condemn 
us ; and make it our study, not to conform the Bible to our 
wishes, but to conform our wishes, our hearts, our whole char- 
acters, to the holy precepts of the Word of God. 

Unless we will receive and treat the Bible after tjiis manner, 
it might be as. well for us if we had no Bible, and perhaps bet- 
ter. For what good can the Bible do us, if we only trifle with 
it? What good can the Bible do us, if, instead of making it 
the standard, and conforming our opinions and characters to it, 
we set up something else as the standard, and only go to the 
Bible that we may bend it to our wishes ? What good can an 
altered Bible do us? And we have seen that the Bible is 
altered, just so far as it is misinterpreted. What good can 
false instructions, false precepts, false promises and encourage- 
ments do us ? And yet the Bible is falsified if it is falsely in- 
terpreted. No, my young brethren, if we need any Bible, we 
need the true Bible. We need it as God made it ; and we need 
to interpret it in a plain, honest, common-sense way, as we 
would any other book or writing in which we felt greatly in- 
terested, and of which we were sincerely desirous to ascertain 
the sense. 



THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 151 

There may be some in these days who, having heard so much 
about the obscurity of Scripture, and the necessity there is for 
exegesis and criticism, have come to feel that the Bible is a 
sealed book to them. It is above their learning, above their 
comprehension, and they may well be excused in neglecting it. 
But it follows, from what has been said, that this impression is 
as unfounded as it is dangerous. The Bible is a plain book, 
was intended for common use, and is to be interpreted on the 
same principles as other books intended for common use. The 
obvious meaning is, in all ordinary cases, the true meaning, and 
can be apprehended by the common reader. You can under- 
stand your neighbor when he comes to you on an errand ; you 
can understand your correspondent when he writes to you on 
business ; you can understand your minister when he preaches 
to you a plain discourse ; and if properly disposed to receive 
the truth, you can just as well understand the plain preaching, 
of Christ, and the plain writings of the apostles and evangelists. 
These writings — as to all essential, practical purposes — are 
within the comprehension of a child, and are important to be 
studied and pondered by us, in the temper of children. This is 
the very spirit in which the Bible can best be understood ; and 
it is from the want of this spirit, more than from any other 
cause, that such various and contradictory interpretations have 
been given to it. I will even go farther, and say that the Bible 
should be studied and pondered by those who are in literal 
childhood. The youth in the Bible-class, the child of ordinary 
capacity in the Sabbath-school, can understand his Saviour 
when he says, "If any man love me, he will keep my com- 
mandments" ; "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" : 
" For every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an 
account in the day of judgment": "He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be 
damned." Surely this is sufficiently plain. What is the diffi- 
culty in understanding such plain language as this ? 

Let all remember, in conclusion, that this Bible, about which 
so much has been said in this and in the previous Lectures, is 
a solemn, awful book. It is solemn to have it in our hands 
and houses. It is solemn to read or hear its important mes- 



152 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

sages. Who would not be solemnly affected if he should hear 
the Almighty speaking to him in an audible voice from the 
skies ? Yet the Almighty is speaking to us as really and as 
solemnly in the Bible as though he addressed us directly from 
the heavens. Let us beware, then, how we trifle with his 
words. "The word that I have spoken unto you," saith Christ, 
w the same shall judge you at the last day." Among the books 
then opened, as the rule of final judgment, will be that holy 
book of which you have now been hearing. Shall it be opened 
to testify in your favor, or against you? Shall it be opened to 
your confusion and condemnation, or to your unspeakable and 
eternal joy? 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 153 



LECTUKE XII. 

THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

Haying shown, in our previous Lectures, that the Bible is the 
Word of God, and that its testimony, as such, is to be received, 
we proceed to inquire as to the purport of that testimony. 
What does the Bible teach? What is that system of doctrine 
and duty which it reveals? And, first of all, what are the teach- 
ings of Scripture respecting Christ? What kind of person- 
age ivas he, — is he? The subject before us is the teachings 
of Scripture respecting the person of Christ. 

I. The Scriptures represent Christ as a divine person ; and by 
this we mean, not that our Saviour is an exalted created being, 
sometimes called God, in the Arian sense of the term ; — nor 
that he is derived divinity, partaking of the eternal substance 
of the Father, but having emanated from him in time, in the 
semi- Arian sense ; — but that he is properly God, equal with the 
Father, and possessed, like him, of all divine attributes and 
glories. Such we understand to be the testimony of Scripture, 
in respect to Christ ; a portion of which testimony I shall briefly 
exhibit. 

1 . In the Scriptures we find divine attributes ascribed to Christ, 
such as omnipotence, omnipresence, unchangeableness, eternal 
existence, etc. He speaks of himself expressly as the Almighty. 
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, which 
was, which is, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. i. 8). 
He is said to know all things. "Now we are sure that thou 
knottiest all things." " Lord, thou Jcnowest all things; thou know- 
est that I love thee" (John xvi. 30; xxi. 17). He is declared 
also to be immutable. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, 
and forever" (Heb. xiii. 8). He is represented as being pres- 

20 



154 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ent, at the same instant, on earth and in heaven ; or, which is 
the same, as being omnipresent. "No man hath ascended up to 
heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of 
Man ivhich is in heaven" (John iii. 13). The eternity of Christ 
is set forth in a passage already quoted. He is the "Alpha and 
Omega, the beginning and the ending, which is, and which was, 
and which is to come." 

2. In the Scriptures, such names and epithets are applied to 
Christ, as can import nothing less than supreme divinity. He 
is called not only God, as in John i. 1, but "the mighty God" 
(Is. ix. 6), "the great God" (Tit. ii. 13), "the true God" (1 
John v. 20), the " God over all, blessed forever" (Eom. ix. 5). 
He is also styled "Jehovah," "Jehovah of hosts," "Jehovah our 
righteousness," "Lord of all," "the Lord from heaven," " the 
King of kings and Lord of lords." The Jehovah which Isaiah 
saw, "sitting upon a throne high and lifted up," whose train 
filled the heavenly temple, was no other than the Lord Jesus 
Christ. (Compare Is. vi. 1 with John xii. 41.) "This is his 
name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our righteousness " 
(Jere. xxiii. 6). 

3. Divine worhs are in Scripture ascribed to the Lord Jesus 
Christ ; such as creating, upholding, and governing all things : 
performing miracles, forgiving sins, judging the world, etc. 
"All things ivere made by him, and without him was not any- 
thing made that was made" (John i. 3). "By him were all 
things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible 
and invisible,, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or princi- 
palities, or powers ; all things were created by him, and for him, 
and he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Col. 
i. 16, 17). Christ is said to possess all power, in heaven and 
on earth. The government is on his shoulders (Mat. xxviii. 18. 
Is. ix. 6). He forgave sins, while here on the earth ; and raised 
the dead ; and shall judge the quick and the dead, at his appear- 
ing (2 Tim. iv. 1). 

4. In the Scriptures, divine worship is ascribed to Christ. 
Stephen prayed to' Christ in his last moments, and commended 
to him his departing spirit (Acts vii. 59, 60). Paul often 
prayed to the Lord Jesus. Indeed, the early Christians were 



THE PERSON OF CHEIST. 155 

distinguished as those who " called on the name of the Lord " ; 
or (which is the same) prayed to Christ. In times yet future, 
we are assured that " at the name of Jesus, every knee shall 
bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under 
the earth" (Phil. ii. 10). When the heavens were opened to 
the view of the beloved disciple, he saw Christ worshipped there, 
with all possible reverence and devotion. " And when he had 
taken the book, the four beasts, and the four and twenty elders, 
fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and 
golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of Saints. And 
they sang a new song, saying : Thou art worthy to take the 
book, and to open the seals thereof, for thou wast slain, and hast 
redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and 
tongue, and people, and nation, and hast made us unto our God 
kings and priests, and we shall reign upon the earth. And I 
beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the 
throne, and the beasts, and the elders, and the number of them 
was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thou- 
sands, saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was 
slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, 
and honor, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which 
is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as 
are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Bless- 
ing, and honor, and glory and power, be unto him that sitteth 
upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever" (Rev. 
v. 8-13). Such was the grand chorus of praise which John 
heard sung to the Lamb in heaven. Such is the pure and exalted 
worship which is there ascribed to him. It is the same which 
is ascribed "to him that sitteth upon the throne," that is, to 
the Father. It is such, surely, as cannot, without the most 
offensive idolatry, be ascribed to any other than a divine 
person. 

5. Our Saviour is represented, in the Scriptures, as claiming 
to be God, and claiming for himself divine honors. " I am in 
the Father, and the Father in me." " He that hath seen me, 
hath seen the Father." " I and my Father are one " (John x. 
•30; xiv. 9, 10). "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and 
the ending, which was, which is, and which is to come, the 



156 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Almighty " (Eev. i. 8). "I ani be who searcheth the reins and 
the heart" (Rev. ii. 23). 

Our Saviour's consenting to receive the worship of men on 
earth, and of saints and angels in heaven, is a manifest claim, 
on his part, to be God. Would any holy creature, however ex- 
alted, consent to receive such worship for a moment? "When 
John was about to fall down and worship a ministering angel , 
the heavenly messenger promptly forbade him. " See thou do 
it not. Worship God" (Rev. xxii. 9). 

While our Saviour was on the earth, "he thought it not rob- 
bery to be equal with God " ; and so numerous and manifest 
were his claims to divinity, that his enemies took occasion to 
say : " Thou being a man, makest thyself God." 

To all this it has been objected that, in addressing the Father, 
Christ calls him the only true God, " This is life eternal, that 
they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom 
thou hast sent " (John xvii. 3) . That the Father is not here 
styled the true God, to the exclusion of the divine nature of the 
Son, is evident from another passage in the writings of John, 
where Christ is expressly called " the true God and eternal life " 
(1 John v. 20). The gods excluded, in the first passage, are 
undoubtedly the idols of the heathen. The proper sense of the 
passage may be given thus : w This is life eternal, that they may 
know thee, the only true God " — in distinction from all the gods 
of the nations — " and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." 

I need add no more in proof of our Saviour's divinity. We 
have the same evidence, in kind, from Scripture, that Christ is 
God, as we have that the Father is God ; and to reject this evi- 
dence in reference to Christ, is to put it out of our power to 
prove, from the Bible, that there is any God at all. 

I hardly need say, that the divinity of Christ has been a dis- 
puted doctrine, almost from the apostolic age. It was rejected 
by the Ebionites, in the second century, who believed Christ to 
be no greater than Moses. It was rejected by the Gnostics of 
the second and third centuries. It was rejected by the Arians 
and semi- Arians of the fourth and fifth centuries. It was re- 
jected by the Socihians of the sixteenth century. It is rejected 
by Unitarians of every class in modern times. Nevertheless, 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 157 

the foundation of God staudeth sure. The unbelief of men 
cannot make the truth of God of none effect. The proof of 
ofar Saviour's divinity is in the Bible, and by no dint of honest 
interpretation can it be got out of it. It can never be removed 
or set aside, until the Bible is discarded with it. In regard to 
the person of Christ, I remark, 

II. That he was man as well as God. The fact of his 
humanity is incontestible ; and this fact is as necessary to the 
scheme of evangelical religion as is that of his divinity. Christ 
is called a man more than fifty times, in the New Testament. 
He was born, lived, ate, drank, slept and awaked, suffered, 
died, and was buried, like other men. He had a human soul, 
as well as a human body. He "increased in wisdom" as well 
as in stature, and had all the affections and passions of a sinless 
human being. Indeed, we have as much evidence of the proper 
humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we have of the humanity 
of Peter, Paul, or John, or any other individual spoken of in 
the Bible. 

If any ask here how divinity and humanity were so united in 
Christ, as to constitute but one person, I answer that I cannot 
tell how. The quo modo of this union is not revealed. It is a 
mystery. And here, precisely, lies the mystery of the incarna- 
tion ; not in the fact of it, but in the manner. The fact that 
our Saviour was both God and man is abundantly taught in the 
Scriptures. It is taught, not only in its different parts, but in 
various passages, where the whole doctrine is exhibited to- 
gether. " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us " 
(John i. 14). " God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. iii. 16). 
"Unto us a child is bom; unto us a son is given; and the 
government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be 
called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God" (Is. ix. 6). 
The fact of a mysterious union of divinity and humanity in the 
person of Christ, I repeat, is clearly revealed ; and as such is 
to be received. The manner of this union is not revealed, and 
with it we have nothing to do. It is among the secret things 
which belong only to God. 

Nor does the mystery of the incarnation, in this view, stand 
•alone. It is on the same footing precisely with a thousand other 



158 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

things. ^ How many things do we believe as facts, the manner 
of which we cannot understand or explain ? Who can explain 
how grass grows in the summer ? Yet we believe that it do£s 
grow. What man can tell us how soul and body are united in 
his own person ? Yet we believe that they are united. And 
just so in regard to the person of Christ. The facts of the case 
we understand and believe, as God hath revealed them in his 
Word. But as to the manner of the union between the Divine 
and the human, we know nothing, and can explain nothing. 
Where the Word of God is silent, we may well hold our peace. 

But it is said that the incarnation of Christ is something 
more than a mystery ; it is an impossibility. It is palpably 
inconsistent with the unchangeableness of God. For God to 
become man involves a mighty change in his very nature, which 
is impossible. But how does the objector know that the incar- 
nation of Christ, — the Word becoming flesh, — involves any 
change in the nature or attributes of the Supreme Being ? Has 
he penetrated far enough into the deep things of God to be 
sure of this? May not God manifest himself in the flesh, — 
veil his Divinity in humanity, — and yet be the same God? The 
sun, which shone so brightly yesterday, is shut in by thick 
clouds to-day ; still we do not doubt that it is the same sun. 
So the great Sun of Eighteousness, while veiled beneath the 
cloud of mortal flesh, may have been the same glorious Being, 
essentially, as before. 

The proper humanity of Christ, like his Divinity, has often 
been denied. There were those near the close of the apostolic 
age, who denied that Jesus had a real human body ; and this led 
the Apostle John to insist so strenuously, that Jesus Christ had 
come in the flesh. The Gnostics, the Arians, and semi-Arians, 
all denied that Christ had a human soul. Though differing in 
other respects, they were agreed in this, that Christ was neither 
God nor man, but held a rank somewhere between the two. 

III. Christ is not only God and man united in one person,- 
but he is the constituted Mediator between God and man. The 
Mediatorship of Christ is repeatedly brought to view in the 
Scriptures. "He is the Mediator of the New Testament" (Heb. 
ix. 15) . " There is one Mediator between God and man, the man 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. ' 159 

Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. ii. 5). As a Mediator, Christ acts under 
a commission from his Father, and is officially subordinate to 
him. He taught what he was sent to teach ; he did what he 
was sent to do ; he suffered what he was sent to suffer. He re- 
ceived a kingdom from the Father ; and. when the mediatorial 
work is accomplished, he will deliver up his kingdom to the 
Father again (1 Cor. xv. 24). All this does not imply that, in 
nature, Christ is not equal with the Father, but that officially — 
mediatorily — in accomplishing the great work of our redemp- 
tion — he is subordinate to him. 

It is in his mediatorial capacity that Christ executes the three 
grand offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. As Mediator he is 
the great teacher and light of the world. As Mediator, he has 
made expiation for his people, and ever liveth to intercede for 
them. As Mediator, he is King in Zion, and is overruling all 
things for his church. As Mediator, he will descend to raise 
the dead, and judge the world in the final day. We can never 
take in the whole doctrine of Christ, unless we conceive of him 
in his mediatorial character and work. Many of those passages, 
which are quoted to prove Christ's inferiority to the Father, 
merely set forth his official, mediatorial subordination. "All 
things are delivered unto me of my Father." "I seek not mine 
own will, but the will of my Father which hath sent me." "I 
do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak 
these things." In these and the like passages, Christ speaks as 
Mediator ; acknowledging, not an inferiority of nature, but 
merely an official subordination. As Mediator, the Father sent 
him, and instructed him ; and throughout his entire mediatorial 
work, he follows the instructions, and obeys and suffers the will 
of his Father. 

Those who read the whole Bible, and are willing to accept its 
entire testimony respecting Christ, will find that he there speaks, 
and is spoken of, in three different capacities. First, as God. 
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, wfiich 
was, which is, and which is to come, the Almighty." "I am 
he who searcheth the reins and the heart." " Wonderful, 
Counsellor, Mighty God." *• This is the true God and eternal 
life." Secondly, as man. "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved 



160 4 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

of God among you." " After me cometh a man who is preferred 
before me." "This man was counted worthy of more glory 
than Moses." Thirdly, as Mediator between God and man. 
"Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant." "There is one 
Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." 

The whole testimony of Scripture concerning Christ, I have 
sometimes compared to a lock, so ingenuously constructed that 
but one key can be made to fit it. Apply this key, that Christ 
is God, and nothing else, and it does not suit. It can be turned 
a little way, but cannot be brought round. It meets exactly 
those passages which speak of Christ's divinity, but is incon- 
sistent with others which speak of his humanity. Apply next 
the Socinian key, that Christ is a man and nothing else. Now 
this, like the last, turns very well a little way, but no art or 
strength can bring it round. It meets exactly those passages 
which speaks of Christ's humanity, but contradicts others which 
assert his divinity. Try next the Arian or semi-Arian key — 
those theories which represent Christ as neither God nor man, 
but as occupying a place between the two ; and these, it will be 
found, turn easily no where. They grate hardly and harshly, 
threatening lock, or key, or both, with every move that is made. 
They meet neither the passages which speak of our Saviour's 
humanity, nor that other class which speak of his Divinity. 
But there is yet another key, — the good old Trinitarian key, — 
which represents that Christ is both God and man, and Mediator 
between God and men. We insert this, and we find that it 
moves easily everywhere. It turns through all the wards of 
the lock, meeting and harmonizing all. This, then, beyond all 
question, is the right key. This is the ' revelation which God 
hath given us of his Son — the truth, as it is in Jesus. 

Before closing, it may be well to offer a few remarks respect- 
ing a disputed phraseology occurring often in the Scriptures, — 
the Son of God. 

1 . Christ is called the Son of God on account of his miracu- 
lous conception. " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and 
the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore, 
that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son 
of God" (Lukei. 35). 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 161 

2. Christ is "declared to be the Son of God with power, by 
his resurrection from the dead" (Rom. i. 4). The resurrection 
of Christ is also spoken of as a fulfilment of what is written in 
the second Psalm : " Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten 
thee" (Acts xiii. 33). 

3. The phrase Son of God was evidently understood by the 
Jews as importing Divinity, Accordingly, whenever our Saviour 
used this phrase, in the high and peculiar sense in which he 
was accustomed to apply it to himself, they accused him of blas- 
phemy, and were ready to stone him. " We have a law, and by 
our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of 
God" (John xix. 7). "The Jews sought the more to kill him, 
because he said that God was his Father " — and, of course, that 
he was God's Son, — " making himself equal with God " (John 
v. 18).- 

The phrase, Son of God, is in Scripture frequently applied 
to Christians, but not in the way or in the sense in which our 
Saviour applied it to himself. As he used it, I am clearly of 
the opinion that it imports divinity. So the Jews understood 
it, certainly ; and if they were deceived, Christ took no pains 
to undeceive them. 

The question about the eternal generation of the Son,' seems 
to be little more than a question of words. The phrase, as 
explained by its advocates, imports no proper generation at all, 
but merely that the nature of the distinctions between the three 
persons in the Godhead is such, that the terms Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit, may with propriety be applied to them. And 
to this view of the case I see no valid objection. There doubt- 
less are good reasons now why one of the Divine persons, rather 
than either of the others, should be called Father ; and why 
another should be called Son ; and why the third should be 
called the Holy Spirit. And as God is unchangeable in his 
nature and mode of existence, these reasons must have been the 
same from all eternity. Though the Eternal Three are equal in 
every divine perfection and attribute, it is not necessary to 
suppose them, in all their relations and in every particular, 
alike. There may be, and I think there is, something peculiar 
to each, which furnishes a reason or lays a foundation for the 

21 



162 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

particular part which each has undertaken to perform in the 
work of our redemption, and for the names appropriated to 
each in the Scriptures. And if this is all which the ^advocates 
of eternal generation believe on the subject, we will not object 
to the doctrine itself, but only to the phraseology in which they 
choose to set it forth. 

The doctrine of Christ, as here presented, is one of the 
utmost importance every way. It is important theologically . 
Christ, I hardly need say, is the soul and centre of the entire 
system of Christian theology. Without him and without such 
views of him as have here been exhibited, no consistent scheme 
of theology can possibly be constructed. You might as well 
tear out the sun from the solar system, and leave the harmony 
of that system unbroken, as remove Christ, — Christ, the God, 
Man, and Mediator, — -from your system of theology, and have 
any system left. 

But the true doctrine of Christ is as important practically as 
it is theologically. We all need just such a Saviour as has been 
set before us, and such a Saviour we must have, or we are lost 
forever. We certainly need a divine Saviour. A being any- 
thing less than God would be infinitely inadequate to perform 
the work of redeeming and saving a ruined world. And we as 
certainly need a human Saviour. It behooved Christ, says Paul, 
"to be made in all things like unto his brethren" — in other 
words, to become a man, — that he might be a merciful and 
faithful high-priest, to make reconciliation for the sins of the 
people." As by man came sin and the curse, so by man they 
must be taken away. As "by 'man came death, so by man 
came also the resurrection of the dead." Had Christ possessed 
a divine, and not a human nature, he could not have died for 
sinners ; for the divine nature cannot die. Or had he possessed 
a human, and not a divine nature, he could not, by once offer- 
ing up himself, have made expiation for a guilty world. Hence, 
it is not enough to say of the doctrine exhibited in this Lecture, 
that it is the only one which accords with Scripture and with 
true Christian theology ; it is the only one which presents us 
with such a Saviour as we need,— absolutely need, — a Saviour 
on whom we may repose our guilty souls forever. 



THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 163 

The Saviour here exhibited is one which Christians love to 
contemplate, — one to whom they can look, under all circum- 
stances, with unmingled satisfaction. They can repose on him 
with unlimited confidence, because he is God. He has blood 
enough to cleanse them from their sins, and grace enough to 
bear with their infirmities, and strength to deliver them from 
all their foes. "He is able to save, to the uttermost, all who 
come unto God by him." At the same time, they can be assured 
of his sympathy, and can look up to him with the affection of 
kindred; because he is a man. He is their elder brother, — 
bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh. He has gone before 
them in all the depths of trial and suffering. " He knows what 
sore temptations mean, for he. has felt the same." The human- 
ity of Christ presents him before us in the most winning, 
endearing attitude ; while his divinity invests him with ail the 
grandeur and majesty of Jehovah. 

O that this mysterious and exalted personage may be to each 
one of us "the chiefest among ten thousand, and altogether 
lovely!" Let us love him, confide in him, obey him, follow' 
him, as we would hope to reign with him in his everlasting 
kingdom. 



164 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XIII. 

THE PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

By the personality of the Spirit, we do not mean that he is a 
Being by himself, separate from the Father and the Son, and 
independent of them ; for this would be inconsistent with the 
divine unity. 

Nor do we mean that the Spirit is a personification of the 
divine power, or of any other divine attribute or influence. 
How would the Scriptures read interpreted in this way? "Bap- 
tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of a 
divine attribute or influence" ! "The grace of the Lord Jesus, 
the love of God, and the communion of a divine attribute or 
influence " be with you ! " Grieve not a divine attribute or 
influence"! "Whoever shall speak a word against a divine 
attribute or influence, it shall not be forgiven him " ! Who will 
dare subject the Scriptures to such torture as this, for the pur- 
pose of bending them into conformity to a system ? 

Nor do we mean by the personality of the Spirit, that this is 
a mere name of office, or of some peculiar manifestation, of the 
one God in one person. But our meaning is, that there are 
personal distinctions in the Godhead, and that one of these is in 
Scripture denominated the Holy Spirit. 

1. There are personal distinctions in the Godhead. This is 
certain, from the representations of the Bible. Look into the 
Old Testament. "And the Lord God said, Behold the man is 
become as one of us" (Gen. iii. 22). One of whom, — if there 
are no personal distinctions in the Jehovah Aleim, — the Lord 
God? A mysterious personage is often introduced in the Old 
Testament, called the angel of Jehovah, But a comparison of 
passages shows that this angel or messenger of Jehovah was 



PEKSONALITY AND DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIEIT. 165 

Jehovah. Such was the angel who communed with Hagar in 
the desert (Gen. xvi. 13), and who called to Abraham out of 
heaven, when about to sacrifice his son (Gen. xxii. 16) ; and 
who spake to Moses out of the burning bush (Ex. iii. 4, 6). 
Certainly, the angel or messenger of Jehovah must be a person- 
age distinct from Jehovah ; and yet that angel was Jehovah. 
We are told, also, that "Jehovah rained fire and brimstone 
from Jehovah out of heaven " ; — a manifest proof of distinctions 
in the Godhead (Gen. xix. 24). 

When we look into the New Testament, proof of the same 
point clusters around us on every hand. It is as certain as the 
language of Scripture can make it, that our Lord Jesus Christ, 
in his divine nature, was distinct from the divine nature of the 
Father; and, of course, that there are personal distinctions in 
the Deity. " In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word 
was with God, and the Word was God; the same was, in the 
beginning, with God" (John i. 1, 3). Here, the divine Word, 
who was God, and by whom all things were made, is said to 
have been with God, and with him in the beginning ; importing 
that there have been distinctions in the Godhead from all eter- 
nity. "And now, O Father, glorify thou me, with the glory 
which I had with thee, before the world was" (John xvii. 5). 
The human nature of Christ had no existence before the creation 
of the world. In this passage, therefore, he refers to his divine 
nature, and he represents it as from eternity ivith the Father in 
glory ; — a certain proof again of eternal distinctions in the 
Godhead. Let any person read the first ten verses of the first 
chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and see if a marked and 
manifest distinction is not set forth there, between the divine 
nature of the Son and that of the Father. The Son is here 
represented as the creator and upholder of the world ; and yet 
he is clearly distinguished from the Father, who is speaking of 
him, who calls him his Son, and at whose right hand the glori- 
fied Son is exalted. "When he (the Father) bringeth his first 
begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God 
worship him." This first begotten of the Father must be dis- 
tinct from the Father ; and yet he is a proper object of worship 
to all the angels of God. " Unto the Son he (the Father) saith : 



166 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ; the sceptre of thy 
kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness, 
and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed 
thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Here God the 
Father certainly speaks of the Son in his divine nature, calls 
him God, and yet represents himself as his God; — necessarily 
importing that there are distinctions in the Godhead. 

I will adduce but one passage more in proof of the point 
before us, though it would be easy to adduce hundreds. "Bless- 
ing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth 
on the throne, and to the Lamb forever" (Rev. v. 13). The 
worship here offered to him that sitteth on the throne, and to 
the Lamb, shows that these are both divine personages. And 
yet they are distinct personages.' It is impossible so to con- 
found them as to make them but one person, without doing the 
utmost violence to language. 

Having thus proved, in opposition to every form and theory 
of Unitarianism, that there are eternal, personal distinctions in 
the Godhead, I proceed to show — 

2. That one of these personal distinctions is in Scripture 
denominated the Holy Spirit; or in other words, that the Holy 
Spirit is not a figure of speech, but a distinct personal agent. 
The proof of this rests entirely on the language, the phraseology 
of the Bible, and to this point we now direct attention. 

"Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost." In this solemn, sacramental service, 
the Holy Ghost is joined with the Father and the Son, denoting 
that he is as really a person as either of them. "The grace of 
the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the communion of the 
Holy Ghost, be with you" (2 Cor. xiii. 14). Here again the 
Holy Spirit is represented as a distinct person, and put on 
equality with the Father and the Son. "One Spirit, one Lord, 
one God, and Father of all" (Eph. iv. 4). "Through him 
(Christ) we have access, by one Spirit, unto the Father" (Eph. 
ii. 18). "Elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the 
Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and 
sprinkling of the blood of Christ" (1 Pet. i. 2). In all these 
passages, and in many others, we have set forth the personal 



PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 167 

distinctions in the Godhead, and the Spirit expressly named as 
constituting one of them. 

The personality of the Spirit was clearly manifested at the 
baptism of our Saviour. "The heavens were opened, and the 
Spirit descended in a bodily shape, like a dove upon him ; and 
a voice came from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in 
whom I am well pleased" (Mark i. 10, II). This heavenly 
dove was not a personified attribute of God, nor was it the 
Father manifesting himself in a particular way ; for while the 
Spirit was descending, the Father was speaking in an audible 
voice from heaven, and the Son was being consecrated to his 
public ministry in baptism. 

The personality of the Spirit is further evident from our 
Saviour's promises to his disciples : " I (the Son) will pray the 
Father, and he shall give you another Comforter,"— distinct 
both from myself and the Father, — "that he may abide with 
you forever, even the Spirit of truth." "The Comforter, which 
is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name," — ■ 
and who, of course, is distinct from both the Father and me, 
—"he will teach you all things," etc. "When the Comforter 
is come, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the 
Father," — and consequently cannot be the Father, — " he shall 
testify of me." "He will reprove the world of sin, of right- 
eousness, and of judgment." "He will guide you into all truth ; 
for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, 
that shall he speak, and he shall show you things to come." 
" He shall glorify me ; for he shall receive of mine, and shall 
show it unto you." In all these Scriptures, if the language had 
been constructed with a view to show the personality of the 
Spirit in distinction from that of the Father and the Son, I see 
not how it could have been better adapted for this purpose. The 
Spirit is here called not only the Comforter, which is a personal 
agent, but another Comforter, distinct both from the Father and 
the Son, who is to teach, to testify, to reprove, to speak, to 
hear, to guide, to receive, to show, and, in short, to perform all 
personal acts. 

When the promises of the Saviour began to be fulfilled, and 
the Spirit came ; his intercourse with the disciples, and govern- 



168 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

merit over them, were manifestly those of a personal agent. 
" The Spirit said unto Philip : Go near and join thyself unto 
this chariot." " The Spirit said unto Peter, Behold three men 
seek thee ; arise, therefore, and go with them." " The Holy 
Ghost said, Separate me Paul and Barnabas, for the work to 
which I have called them." " So they, being sent forth by the 
Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia." " It seemed good to the 
Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden." 
" Paul and Silas were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the 
Word in Asia." " They essayed to go into Bythinia, but the 
Spirit suffered them not." 

These passages are but a specimen of the current phraseology 
of the New Testament, in relation to this matter. And now, I 
ask, what meaneth this language, — what can it mean, — if the 
Holy Ghost is not a distinct personal agent ? Occurring as it 
does, not in a poetic rapture, but in plain, sober narrative and 
prose, can it be understood as importing anything less than this ? 
What more appropriate language can be selected from the Bible 
to prove the personality of the Father or the Son ? 

In different parts of the Bible the Holy Ghost is spoken of 
as the object of offence and injury, in a way to denote his per- 
sonality. Ananias and Sapphira " lied to the Holy Ghost." 
The ancient Israelites " rebelled and vexed the Holy Spirit." 
The Jews "always resisted the Holy Ghost." Christians are 
exhorted not to " grieve the Holy Spirit of God." And what 
shall be said of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, if he is not 
a personal agent ? " Whosoever shall speak a word against the 
Son of man, it shall be forgiven him ; but whosoever speaketh 
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him " (Matt. xii. 
32). Is it not certain from this representation, that if Christ is 
a person, the Holy Ghost is a person ; and that the latter is not 
inferior in point of dignity to the former? 

In various parts of the Bible, the Holy Ghost is said to be 
sent, to move, to know, to speak, to guide, to lead, to help, to 
testify, to reveal, to search, to intercede, to prophecy, to work 
miracles, to sanctify, to bestow gifts, to give life, to be resisted, 
to be pleased, and vexed, and grieved, and spoken against, — 



* 

PEKSONALITY AND DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIKIT. 169 

in short, to do, and to suffer, all thajt is appropriate to a divine 
and personal agent. 

It is no valid objection to the personality of the Spirit, that 
the Greek word translated spirit is in the neuter gender; for, 
wherever it refers to the Holy Spirit, the word is used in con- 
nection with the masculine pronouns, — -creating an anomaly in 
the Greek language, for the apparent purpose of showing that 
the word, in such connections, stands for a person, and not a 
thing. 1 

Neither is it any objection to the views which have been 
exhibited, that the term spirit is sometimes used, by a very 
common figure, for the influences or operations of the Spirit. 
In this sense it is used, when the Spirit is said to be poured 
out, and shed forth, and when the Holy Ghost is said to have 
been given, by the laying on of apostolic hands. (See Acts 
viii. 17 ; xix. 6.) 

But without dwelling longer on the personality of the Spirit, 
let us proceed to the question of his divinity. 

1. The divinity of the Spirit is clearly involved in what has 
been already said. If there are personal distinctions in the 
very essence of the Godhead, and if one of these persons is the 
Holy Spirit, then, obviously, he must be a divine person. No 
other supposition can possibly be entertained. Then, 

2. We find the names God and Jehovah applied, in Scripture, 
to the Holy Spirit. Ananias and Sapphira "lied to the Holy 
Ghost" ; but it is expressly said that, in so doing, they "lied 
unto God" (Acts v. 4). Christians are said to have been born 
of the Spirit; but this birth of the Spirit is a being born of 
God (John i. 13 ; iii. 5). The bodies of Christians are more- 
over represented as temples of God, because the Holy Spirit 
dwelleth in them (1 Cor. iii. 16). The Israelites in the wilder- 
ness tempted Jehovah (Ex. xvii. 17). But it was the Spirit 
whom they vexed and tempted (Is. lxiii. 10). A new covenant 
was promised by Jehovah to his people (Jer. xxxi. 31). But 
it was the Holy Spirit who gave this promise (Heb. x. 15). 
The Lord God of Israel spake by all the holy prophets (Luke 

i See John xiv. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 14; Eph. i. 13, 14. 
22 



170 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

i. 70). Yet these holy men "spake as they were moved by 
the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. i. 21). 

3. The Holy Spirit is represented as possessing divine attri- 
butes. He is said to " search all things, even the deep things 
of God," — an incontestibie proof of his omniscience (1 Cor. ii. 
10). He is also expressly denominated "the eternal Spirit" 
(Heb. ix. 14). 

4. The works ascribed to the Holy Spirit are proof conclusive 
of his divinity. The- inspiration of the Scriptures is a work of 
the Spirit (2 Pet. i. 21). So also is the conversion of sinners, 
and the sanctification of believers. And so is the performance 
of miracles. So purely was this last regarded by the apostles 
as the work of the Spirit, that the imparting of the Spirit, and 
the power to work miracles, was with them the same thing. 
(See Acts xix. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 8-11). 

Indeed, so abundant is the evidence from Scripture of the 
divinity of the Holy Spirit, that this is admitted by most 
Unitarians. "The Spirit of God," they say, "is God himself "; 
meaning that he is the one God, in one person, whom they 
worship. We may properly cite this concession, in proof of 
the divinity of the Holy Spirit, while we reject the errors con- 
nected with it; viz., a denial of personal distinctions in the 
Godhead, and the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost. 

The personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit is manifestly 
a doctrine of great importance. It is so theologically. It 
stands in vital connection with the doctrine of the Trinity, and 
with the mysterious mode of the divine existence. It is directly 
related, also, to all those doctrines which have respect to the 
conversion and salvation of souls. The office-work of the Spirit 
is as essential to our salvation as is that of the Father, or the 
Son. It is not enough that an atonement has been made for 
sin, and that, on the ground of the atonement, means have been 
instituted, and the free offers of the gospel are made and urged. 
Not a soul will ever embrace these offers, and press into the 
kingdom of Christ, but through the aids and influences of the 
Holy Spirit. 

The doctrine we have considered is one of vital importance, 
also, in its bearing on the hopes and consolations of believers. 



PEKSONALITY AND DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 171 

Every Christian, who has any adequate sense of his necessities, 
feels deeply that he needs the constant interposition of the Holy 
Ghost on his behalf. He needs the Spirit, not only to bring 
him into the kingdom of Christ, but to Jceep him there ; — to en- 
lighten his mind, to quicken his affections, to strengthen him for 
the performance of duty, to guide and comfort him through all 
his pilgrimage, and bring him, at length, to his heavenly 
home. He cannot, therefore, relinquish this doctrine of the 
Spirit. He clings to it, not merely because he finds it in the 
Bible, but because it is the life of his soul. Take it from him, 
and you not only darken, but destroy, his spiritual prospects. 
You extinguish his hopes, dry up the sources of his consola- 
tions, and shroud him in gloom and despair forever. 



172 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUKE XIV. 

THE TRINITY. 

The Trinity is the doctrine .of three persons, or personal dis- 
tinctions, in one God. And herein it differs from every form 
of Unitarianism. Unitarianism is the doctrine of one God in 
one person ; Trinitarianism, of one God in three persons. Both 
teach the doctrine of one God, Hence the absurdity of the rep- 
resentation, so often made, that Trinitarianism contradicts the 
unity of God. So far from contradicting the divine unity, 
Trinitarianism implies it, or rather includes it. Men may be 
Tritheists, or Polyethists, if they will ; but Trinitarians they 
cannot be, without believing in the unity of God. 

Trinitarianism does not assert, however, that God is one, and 
three, in the same sense; or that each of the three persons is 
one, in the sense that all united are one. Either of these propo- 
sitions would be an absurdity. But the doctrine does assert, 
that God is in some sense one, and in some other senses or re- 
spects, three ; and this statement involves no absurdity. For 
aught that any created, being can show to the contrary, it may 
be true ; and Trinitarians believe that it is true. They believe 
that God has thus revealed to us the mode of his own existence. 

The distinctions in the Godhead are commonly called persons ; 
and if this word is understood with some necessary qualifica- 
tions, there is no objection to it. When used in relation to this 
subject, it cannot mean (what it commonly does) that those to 
whom it is applied are entirely separate beings, like three human 
persons ; for this would be inconsistent with their essential 
unity. But in some sense, and to some extent, the divine persons 
are distinct. They are so far distinct, that they may properly 
speak, or be spoken of, in the plural number. They may use 



THE TEINITY. 173 

the personal pronouns, 1, thorn, and he, in reference to each 
other. They are represented as entering into a covenant, and 
as holding an infinitely blessed intercourse and communion, one 
with another. They are said also to discharge different offices 
and works. 

The Trinitarian may not be able to explain, however, the 
precise nature and extent of these distinctions ; because the Bible 
does not explain them. On this point, a variety of questions 
may be asked, which he is not at all concerned to answer ; and 
theories may be propounded, which he is not required either to 
adopt or refute. The only caution to be observed, is to avoid 
such conceptions of the trinity in God, as will conflict with his 
essential unity ; and such conceptions of his unity, as will 
exclude the trinity : in other words, to avoid Tritheism on the 
one hand, and simple Unitarianism on the other. 

But as to the fact of distinctions in the Godhead, as above 
stated, the Trinitarian has no doubt. This he holds to be 
clearly revealed. He holds, too, that these are real and eternal 
distinctions. Not mere names of operation, or of office ; not 
mere pageants^ acting a part for the sake of effect ; but distinc- 
tions, which enter into the very nature of the one God, and are 
eternal like himself. 

.This, then, is what we understand by the doctrine of the 
Trinity : One God, existing in three equal and eternal persons, 
or personal distinctions, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 

The first part of the doctrine is that of the essential unity of 
God. But the proof of this need not detain us long. That God 
is one, is a very reasonable conclusion from the light of nature. 
It is certain, from the declarations of Scripture. "Hear, O 
Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord" (Deut. vi. 4). "The 
Lord he is God, there is none else besides him" (Deut. iv. 35). 
" I am the Lord, and there is none else. There is no God besides 
me." "Is there a God besides me? Yea, there is no God; 1 
knoiv not any" (Is. xliv. 8 ; xlv. 5). "Thou believest there is 
t one God; thou doest well. The devils also believe and trem- 
'ble" (James ii. 19). 

That there is a plurality of persons, or personal distinctions, 
in the one God, is also certain from the Scriptures. After what 



174 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

was said on this point in the last lecture, it will not be necessary 
to dwell upon it here. The original name of God, in the Old 
Testament, is in the plural number ; and God often applies to 
himself the plural pronouns. "Let us make man in our image, 
after our likeness." "The man has become as one of us." "Let 
us go down and confound their language/' "Whom shall I 
send, and who will go for us9 " " The Lord said, Let them show 
us what shall happen." These, certainly, are very remarkable 
expressions. They were not adopted without design. And the 
design of them could not have been to lead men into error, but 
to save them from it. And although, possibly, if they stood 
alone, no conclusive argument could be drawn from them in 
proof of personal distinctions in the Godhead, yet, standing as 
they do in connection with other Scriptures, and accordant as 
they are with the general current of Scripture representation 
on the subject, I cannot but think that they do contain, and 
may be quoted to prove, the important doctrine under consid- 
eration. 

The plural name of God (Mohim) is derived from a verb 
which signifies to adjure, or to take an oath; and literally sig- 
nifies those who have taken an oath, or entered into a covenant ; 
alluding, as some suppose, to the eternal covenant of redemption. 
And here it may be observed, that the very existence of a cove- 
nant of redemption, and all the Scriptures referring to such a 
covenant, prove incontestibly that there is a plurality of persons 
in the Godhead. No one person can enter into a proper cove- 
nant with himself. A covenant necessarily implies more than 
one. And if the one God existed in one person only, a cove- 
nant of redemption would be impossible. 

The doctrine of the Trinity asserts, not only that there are 
personal distinctions in the Godhead, but that these distinctions 
are no more nor less than three. And this, too, is abundantly 
evident from the Scriptures, and from what has been established 
in our previous lectures. No one doubts the proper divinity and 
personality of the Father, the first person in the Trinity. We , 
have before proved that the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son 
of God, is a divine person. We have also proved the person- 
ality and divinity of the Holy Spirit. Here then are three divine 



THE TRINITY. 175 

persons. We never read of a fourth person in the Godhead, 
and have no reason to believe that any such person exists. 

In many places in the New Testament (some of. which were 
quoted in my last lecture, and need not be repeated here), the 
names of the three persons in the Trinity are brought together, 
and each is exhibited in his own proper office and work. Take 
the following as examples : " Through him ( Christ) we have 
access, by one Spirit, unto the Father." (Eph. ii. 18). "Elect, 
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through 
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling of 
the blood of Christ " (1 Pet. i. 2). "How much more shall the 
blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself 
without spot to God (the Father) , purge your conscience from 
dead works" (Heb. ix. 14). "Now there are diversities of gifts, 
but the same Spirit; and there are differences of administra- 
tion, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, 
but it is the same God (the Father) which worketh all in all " 
(1 Cor. xii. 4-6). 1 

Evident traces of a Trinity may be found in the mythology of 
some heathen nations ; as in the Pater, Dunamis, and JVous of 
the Persian Magoi, and the Brahma, Vishnoo,, and Siva of the 
Hindoos. Whether these notions were derived from an original 
tradition, or from an acquaintance with our sacred books, or 
from some other source, it is impossible to determine. 

It is more important to remark that the doctrine of the Trinity 

1 Dr. Samuel Clarke, who is claimed by the Unitarians as an advocate of their opinions, 
gives the following summary of the language of Scripture respecting the three persons of 
the Trinity. " The three persons," he says, " are styled once, He which is, which was, 
and which is to come ; the seven spirits which are before the throne ; and Jesus Christ, 
the faithful and true witness : once, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost : once, the 
Father, the Son, and the Spirit : once, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost : twice, 
the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit : twice, the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost : once, 
the Father, Christ, and the Spirit ; once, the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Spirit : once, 
the Father, the Lord, and the Spirit : once, God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Spirit : 
once, He that raised up Jesus from the dead, Jesus, and the Spirit : once, the living God, 
Christ, and the Spirit : once, the living God, Christ, and the eternal Spirit : four times, 
God, Jesus, and the Spirit : once, God, the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost : Jive times, 
God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost : once, God, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the Spirit 
of holiness : once, God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost : Jive times, God, Christ, and the 
Spirit : four times, God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost : five times, God, Jesus Christ, 
and the Spirit: four times, God, the Lord, and the Spirit: tioice, God, his Son, and the 
Spirit ; once, God, the Lord, and the Holy Ghost : and once, God, Christ, and the eternal 
Spirit." (Scrip. Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 383, 384.) 



176 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

was held and taught by the earliest Christian Fathers. They 
speak often of the proper divinity of the Son and Spirit, and in 
some. instances the three persons are introduced together, much 
as they are by the apostles. Thus Ignatius represents the apos- 
tles as subject " both to Christ, and to the Father, and to the 
Holy Spirit." And Poly carp says : " I glorify thee (the Father) 
by the eternal and heavenly High Priest?, Jesus Christ, thy be- 
loved Son ; with whom, to thee, and to the Holy Ghost be glory 
both now, and to all succeeding ages." x 

Some of the more common objections to the doctrine of the 
Trinity, such as that it is inconsistent with the divine unity, and 
is self-contradictory, have been obviated by the explanations 
already made. As before remarked, so far from being inconsis- 
tent with the divine unity, the doctrine of the Trinity necessa- 
rily involves it. It is as much a part of this doctrine that God 
is in some sense one, as that he is in some other sense three. 

Neither is the doctrine thus stated self-contradictory. To say 
that God is one, and three, in the same sense, would be a con- 
tradiction. But to say that God is in some sense one, and in 
some other sense three, is no contradiction. This may be true ; 
and Trinitarians believe, on the authority of Scripture, that it is 
true. Or to put the matter in a little different shape : To say 
that each person in *the Trinity is God, in the sense in which 
they all constitute one God, would be a contradiction. It would 
be to say what no intelligent person could believe. But to say 
that each person in the Trinity is in some sense Gocl, and that, 
in some other sense of the term, they all constitute one God, is 
no contradiction. As I said before, this may be true; and 
Trinitarians believe, on the ground of the revelations which 
(rod has made of himself, that it is true. 

It is no uncommon thing to see three one, and one three, in 
the works of nature and of art. For example : here is a great 
tree, with a single trunk, and three towering, majestic, and 
equal branches. Now each of these branches is, in some sense, 
a tree, having buds, leaves, sap, wood, bark, and the various 
attributes of a tree. Yet each branch is not a tree, in the sense 
in which they all constitute one tree. In some sense, here are 

1 See Wake's Apostolical Fathers, pp. 204, 238, 247, 250. 



THE TKIXITY. 177 

three trees, and in some other sense, there is but one tree. Or 
here, we may suppose, is a mighty river, made of three equal 
branches, but pouring itself into the ocean by one wide mouth. 
Now each of these long branches is a river, and has all the at- 
tributes of a river. But each is not a river, in the sense in which 
they all constitute one river. This great river, like the Deity, 
is in some sense one, while in some other sense it is three. 
These United States are one government, made up of thirty or 
more distinct States. Now each of these States is a govern- 
ment, while they all constitute but one government. Here, 
then, we have thirty in one, and one in thirty ; and yet there is 
no contradiction. 

I do not suppose that these comparisons, or that any earthly 
comparison, can fully illustrate this mighty subject. But they 
illustrate it far enough to show (and* that is all for which I use 
them) that the doctrine of the Trinity, properly understood, 
involves no absurdity, no contradiction whatever. For aught 
any human being can show to the contrary, it may be true ; and 
as the Scriptures so plainly reveal and teach it, we are bound to 
believe that it is true. 

It is further objected to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it is 
confessedly a mystery which no one can understand ; and hence 
faith in it can be no better than a blind faith, — a belief without 
understanding. In reply to this objection, I have three things 
to say. 1. There is that about the Trinity which we do profess 
to understand. 2. There is that about it which we do not 
profess to understand. 3. Our faith in the doctrine reaches no 
farther than our understanding of it. We understand it as a 
fact, clearly revealed, that there are three persons, or personal 
distinctions, in the one God. We believe this great truth as a 
fact. We believe, therefore, what we understand; and we 
understand what we believe. We do not understand how the 
three persons in the Godhead are one, and the one three. The 
mode, the manner, the how, of this great fact, we do not under- 
stand. Neither as to the how of it have we any belief or faith 
at all. What we do not understand about the doctrine we do 
not believe, but simply believe the fact, which we do under- 
stand. 

23 



178 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

And in this view, — as remarked in a previous lecture on the 
incarnation of Christ, — the doctrine of the Trinity stands on 
the same footing precisely with a thousand other things. The 
world is full of mysteries, which we believe as facts, of the quo 
modo of which we neither understand nor believe anything. 

Again, it is objected by Unitarians that the Trinity is of 
heathen origin ; that the early Christians borrowed it from 
Plato, or from the Platonic philosophy, and incorporated it into 
the faith of the church. In replying to this objection, we may 
refer, first of all, to what has been so abundantly proved, that 
the doctrine of the Trinity is drawn from the Bible, and not 
from Plato, — from books, many of which were written long 
before Plato was born. It should be added, secondly, that 
Plato taught no doctrine at all resembling the Christian Trinity. 
We speak advisedly on this* subject. He tells of triads among 
the gods, but his triads are all of them inferior affinities, — 
emanations, directly or indirectly, from the One Supreme. 

The New Platonics of the second and third centuries after 
Christ, in their zeal for a general comprehension, corrupted the 
Scripture doctrine of the Trinity, and introduced their corrup- 
tions into the church ; and in so doing they laid a foundation 
for the disputes and controversies of the next five hundred 
years. Instead of originating the doctrine of the Trinity, the 
Platonic philosophy sadly corrupted it, and led many to reject 
it altogether. 

It is objected, finally, to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it is 
an old, obsolete doctrine. It belongs to a former age. It can- 
not bear the light of the nineteenth century. With the other 
rubbish of bygone ages, it is destined to pass away. In reply 
to this, we admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is an old doc- 
trine, as old as the Bible ; yea, infinitely older, as old as God 
himself. It has its foundations in the very nature of God, and 
is, like the Divine Being, eternal. And as to its being destined 
to pass away, we can only say, that when this takes place, the 
Gospel must pass away with it. The Trinity, and the grand 
scheme of redeeming mercy, must fall together. If God's work 
of salvation in respect to this apostate world is to go on ; if the 
nations are yet to be reached and renovated by the Gospel ; if 



THE TRINITY. 179 

Christ is to see the whole travail of his soul and be satisfied ; if 
the elect of God are to be gathered in ; then we may be sure 
that the doctrine of the holy Trinity will stand. It will never 
pass away. God will always exist, as he always has existed, a 
triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the distinct 
offices and works of these adorable personages will continue to 
be fulfilled. 

In every view we can take of it, the doctrine of the Trinity is 
one of. the highest importance. It is important theologically. 
It has respect to God, our Creator, Preserver, and Moral Gov- 
ernor, — the first cause and last end of all things, — the only 
proper object of supreme love and religious worship. It sets 
forth the mysterious and wonderful mode of the divine exist- 
ence, — in some sense one, and in some other sense three, — three 
divine and equal persons, in the one all-perfect, incomprehen- 
sible, and eternal God. 

This doctrine has respect, also, to the glory and blessedness 
of the Supreme Being. If it can be conceived at all, that a 
Being having such perfections as we ascribe to God, should have 
existed from all eternity, and been perfectly happy in utter, 
blank solitude, it certainly gives us higher views of the glory 
and blessedness of the Supreme Being, to conceive of him as 
possessing within himself exhaustless resources of social blessed- 
ness ; the means of an inter-communion and fellowship the most 
endearing and delightful. " Ask of me, and I shall give thee the 
heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the 
earth for thy possession " (Ps. ii. 8) . " Then said I, Lo I come ; 
in the volume of the book it is written of me ; I delight to do 
thy will, O my God" (Ps. xl. 8). 

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of obvious and infinite 
importance, as it stands connected with the great subject of 
redemption. It was between the three persons in the Godhead 
that the eternal covenant of redemption was formed ; and in 
executing this gracious covenant, the divine three are each and 
all of them engaged. The Father has his appropriate office and 
work, and the Son his, and the Spirit his. The part of neither 
can be dispensed with in the work of our redemption ; nor can 
the part of either be performed by any other than its appropriate 



180 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

personage. The Father cannot perform the office-work of the 
Son, nor the Son that of the Father, nor either of them that of 
the Holy Spirit. Give up the doctrine of the Trinity, there- 
fore, and the whole scheme of man's redemption is subverted 
and overthrown. 

And as without the Trinity there could be no redemption, so 
it is redemption alone which develops, discloses, certifies to us, 
in act, the doctrine of the Trinity. For aught that appears, the 
works of creation and providence may have been performed by 
one God in one person. But not so the work of man's redemp- 
tion. This is a greater, deeper work, which opens to us won- 
ders and glories in the very nature, as well as character, of the 
Supreme Being, which otherwise must have been concealed for- 
ever. It involves, of necessity, the concurrence and co-opera- 
tion of three divine persons, and reveals not only to our under- 
standings, but our hearts, the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost. 

The doctrine of the Trinity is also one of great practical 
importance. And this is $ consideration which, in discussing 
the subject, has been too often overlooked. This doctrine lays 
the only foundation on which we can acceptably worship God, 
or hold spiritual communion with him. Our only mode of 
access to the Father is by the Spirit, and through the Son. 
^ Through whom we have access, by one Spirit unto the Father'' 
(Eph. ii. 18). 

From each of the divine persons in the Trinity the people of 
God derive specific advantages, and to each they are under 
specific obligations of obedience and love. To each they are 
endeared by a thousand ties, and from neither of these adorable 
personages does the intelligent Christian feel that he can ever 
part. He cannot part with his heavenly Father. How can he ? 
To be never again able to say : " Our Father who art in heaven ; '' 
what Christian can consent to this ? No more can he consent to 
part with his divine Redeemer, his Saviour. Think of it, my 
brother, and tell me whether, for any consideration, or under 
any circumstances, you can be separated from him? How can 
you live, or breathe, or exist as a Christian, but in entire and 
constant dependence on him, who is all your salvation and all 



THE TEINTTY. 181 

your desire? And then, as to the holy Sanctifier and Com- 
forter; who can consent to part with him ? To have no more 
of his sweet breathings, and inward communings, and gentle 
strivings, — to be cut off from his quickening and comforting 
influences, — to be separated, in short, from the Holy Spirit; — 
what thought can be more insupportable to the pious heart ? 

No wonder, in this view, that Christians, in all ages, have 
been so tenacious of this doctrine of the Trinity. No wonder 
that they have received it, rested on it, clung to it, and con- 
tended for it, as the charter of their immortal hopes. 



182 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUKE XY. 

THE DECREES OR PURPOSES OF GOD. 

The decrees of God are the chosen, the adopted plan of all 
his works. They "are his eternal purpose, according to the 
counsel of his own will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath 
foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." 

It is unreasonable to suppose that, God would enter upon his 
vast work of creation, providence, and redemption, without a 
plan. No wise person would undertake to build a house, or a 
ship, or to accomplish a voyage, or a journey, without a plan. 
And shall we suppose the all-wise Creator to have entered upon 
the stupendous work in which he is engaged, — the work of 
filling the universe with suns and systems, with beings and 
worlds, and of rolling along the mighty wheel of his providence, 
without any settled purpose or plan ? 

And as that theory which rejects or overlooks the eternal 
purpose of God is unreasonable, so also it is undesirable. Who 
would not prefer that events in providence should take place 
according to an infinitely wise and perfect plan, rather than that 
they should be left at random, or be controlled either by chance 
or fate? 

It is a comfort to us to know, therefore, that this eternal 
purpose or plan of God is referred to in many passages of the 
inspired volume. " I am the Lord, and there is none else ; 
declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times 
the things that are not yet done saying, My counsel shall stand, 
and I will do all my pleasure; calling a ravenous bird from the 
East, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country. I 
have spoken it ; I also will bring it to pass. I have purposed 
it; I also will do it" (Is. xlvi. 9-11). " The counsel of the Lord 



THE DECREES OR PURPOSES OF GOD. 183 

standeth forever ; the thoughts of his heart to all generations " 
(Ps. xxxiii. 11). "There, are many devices in a man's heart ; 
nevertheless, the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand" (Prov. 
xix. 21). "He doeth according to his will in the armies of 
heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can 
stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou ? " (Dan. iv. 35) . 
"Against thy holy child Jesus, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, 
with the Gentiles and people of Israel, were gathered together 
for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before 
to be done" (Acts iv. 27, 28). "Who worketh all things after 
the counsel of his own will" (Eph. i. 11). 

It is not my purpose to go into a critical examination of these 
and the like passages here. They all refer to a will, a pleasure, 
a counsel, sl purpose, of the Supreme Being, which is never frus- 
trated', not even by the greatest wickedness of man; which, so 
far from being frustrated by human wickedness, is the rather 
fulfilled by it ; which is sure to stand in spite of all opposition, 
and to go into complete and endless accomplishment. 

That we may understand aright the purposes of God, they 
must be carefully distinguished from several other things with 
which they have sometimes been confounded. They must be 
distinguished, — 

1. From the law of God. The law of God is the rule which 
he has given to his intelligent creatures, for the regulation of 
their conduct. But the purposes of God are not a rule of con- 
duct to his creatures. They are rather a plan of operation to 
himself, — the plan according to which he is disposing of events 
throughout the universe. Then, the law of God is clearly and 
fully revealed* But the purposes of God, — except in some 
leading particulars, which he has disclosed by his prophets, — 
are not revealed. They are a profound secret in his own breast. 
Again, the law of God is often broken. It is broken in every 
act of sin. But the purposes of God are never contravened or 
frustrated. In crucifying the Saviour, the Jews broke the law 
of God, but they fulfilled his providential purpose. They did 
" what his hand and counsel had before determined should be 
done" (Actsiv. 27, 28). 

2. The purposes of God are to be distinguished from his 



184 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

desires or wishes. The desires of God may be, and often are, 
his feelings in regard to objects or events, viewed separately and 
singly. The purposes of God are his preferences in regard to 
objects or events, viewed in relation to the great whole.- In 
itself considered, God has no pleasure in the death of the 
wicked ; but, all things considered, he has purposed that the 
incorrigibly wicked shall die. In itself considered, God is not 
pleased with the existence of sin or suffering anywhere ; yet 
sin and suffering do exist, and it was doubtless his purpose, in 
view of the great whole, that it should be so. 

3. The purposes of God are to be distinguished from that 
benevolent design which is apparent everywhere in his works. 
We often say, and say truly, that God has designed and adapted 
things with a view to the happiness of his creatures ; and that 
had not his benevolent designs been interrupted and frustrated 
by sin, his creatures might have been universally happy. But 
the word design here is not used in the sense of 'providential 
purpose, which we have seen is never frustrated by sin, but 
rather to express that admirable adaptation of things, which is 
manifest in the works of God, and which sin, to some extent, 
has frustrated. I remark once more, — 

4. The purposes of God are to be distinguished from his fore- 
knowledge. They differ from foreknowledge, not in this, that 
they make events any more fixed or certain, but rather in this, 
that they are prior, in the order of nature, to foreknowledge, 
and are that on which it is grounded, — on which it rests. 

Mere knowledge makes nothing certain, but only knows that 
particular things are certain. This is true of all knowledge ; 
whether foreknowledge, or present knowledge, or afterknowl- 
edge. But if foreknowledge does not make future contingencies 
and events certain, but merely perceives that they are certain, 
the question arises, Upon ivhat is it based? What is there going 
before it, in the order of nature, to establish, and settle, and 
make certain those things which foreknowledge merely per- 
ceives are certain? From the nature of the case, there must 
be something here ; and what is it, what can it be, but the 
eternal purpose of God ? 

We may look at thelmestion in another light. No intelligent 






THE DECREES OR PURPOSES OF GOD. 185 

Theist doubts that all future contingencies and events depend 
upon the will of God. It depends entirely on his will, whether 
either of us shall live another day, or how long we shall live ; 
and so of. all other events in the future. But how shall God 
know that future things, which depend entirely on his will, shall 
be, unless he has put forth some act of will respecting them ; or, 
in other words, unless he has purposed their existence? If all 
future contingencies depend on the will of God, then, obviously, 
until he has willed or purposed that they shall be, they are not 
at all settled or certain, and nothing can be known or foreknown 
respecting them. 

It may be added further, unless, in the order of nature, the 
purposes of God precede foreknowledge, then they are entirely 
useless and superfluous. What propriety or profit in God's de- 
termining that a thing shall be, when he already knows, for a 
certainty, that it will be ? 

It may be objected to the position here taken, that if the 
purposes of God precede foreknowledge, then they must be ut- 
terly blind purposes. They must be formed without knowledge, 
and in the dark. — This objection owes all its plausibility to a 
confounding of the distinction between foreknowledge and om- 
niscience. The purposes of God do not. precede omniscience, 
though, in the order of nature they do precede foreknowledge. 
I say, as I have said before, in the order of nature; for, in 
eternal things, there can be no order of time. 

In the order of nature, then, we are, first of all, to conceive of 
the Divine Being himself, in the possession of his essential and 
eternal attributes, — among which is omniscience. In the pos- 
session of omniscience, he looks out upon the whole range and 
compass of possible things. But everything, at this stage, is 
barely possible. "lean adopt this plan, that, or the other, — 
anything, everything, within the range of possibility." As yet 
nothing is fixed, nothing determined on; and of course nothing 
future is certain, or can be foreknown. But among all the pos- 
sible plans of operation presented to the Omniscient Mind, in- 
stantly and intuitively, the best plan is discovered, and instantly 
it is preferred or adopted. It is adopted in all its branches and 
particulars, — in all its endless ramifications. Everything em- 

24 



186 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

braced in this plan (and everything is embraced in it) is now 
settled and certain, and becomes at once the object of fore- 
knowledge. It could not be foreknown before, because it was 
not certain before. 

According to this view (which to my own mind is the only 
consistent one) , the omniscience of God precedes his purposes, 
and holds up the light — all the light possible — in view of which 
his purposes are formed ; while the purposes of God, in the 
order of nature, precede his foreknowledge, and are that on 
which foreknowledge rests. 

There is another objection to the position we have taken, 
drawn from certain passages of Scripture. "Elect according to 
the foreknowledge of God" (1 Pet. i. 2). "Whom he did 
foreknow he also did. predestinate " (Rom. viii. 29). But it is 
obvious that these Scriptures settle nothing as to the order of 
things in the divine mind, or the divine operation, but merely 
assert that election, predestination, and foreknowledge are co-in- 
cident in respect to their objects. The elect are foreknown, and 
the foreknown are elect. Whom he did foreknow, he also did 
predestinate ; and whom he did predestinate, them also he fore- 
knew. The logical order of things does not seem to be at all 
indicated here, but merely that the foreknown, the predestinate, 
and the elect, are the same persons. 

I have been the more careful to set forth, and to vindicate, 
the proper distinction between the purposes of God and his fore- 
knowledge, because much of the difference between Arminians 
and Calvinists rests (as in the progress of the discussion we 
shall see) precisely here. 

Having explained the decrees or purposes of God, and shown 
how they are distinguished from several things with which they 
have sometimes been confounded, I proceed to say, that the 
divine purposes are strictly universal. They extend to the 
moral world as well as the natural, — to all beings and things, 
to all creatures and events, throughout the universe. This is 
certain. 

1. From the declarations of Scripture. God is said in the 
Scriptures to " work all things after the counsel of his own will " 
,(Epk A. .2), Hence the counsel of his will must extend to all 



THE DECREES OR PURPOSES OF GOD. 187 

things. He is also said to "do according to his will in the 
armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth," or, in 
words, throughout the universe (Dan. iv. 35). 

2. The universality of God's purposes may be proved from 
his omniscience and his infinite benevolence. In the possession 
of omniscience, as I have just remarked, God must have per- 
ceived intuitively, and from all eternity, what was the best plan 
of providence, and, pereeiving this, he could not (if he is infi- 
nitely benevolent) have been indifferent in regard to it. He 
must instantly have preferred or purposed it. He must have 
purposed it in its fullest extent, in all its endless ramifications. 
This plan of God, extending through the immensity of space 
and duration, — reaching to all events, little and great, near 
and remote, in the natural and in the moral world, — constitutes 
the eternal purpose of God, and must be strictly universal. 

3. The universality of God's purposes may also be proved 
from the universality of his foreknowledge. Few men have the 
hardihood to deny that the foreknowledge of God, in respect to 
future contingencies and events, is universal. But we have 
seen that, in the order of nature, the foreknowledge of God 
follows his purposes, and rests upon them. Hence, certainly, 
the former can be no more extensive than the latter. What 
God foreknows he must have purposed. If foreknowledge is 
universal, the divine purposes must be. 

4. The universality of God's purposes may be further argued 
from his predictions. The predictions of God are but a disclos- 
ure of his purposes ; and although these predictions are not 
universal, still, if God has purposed as many things as he has 
actually predicted, the conclusion is reasonable that he has pur- 
posed all things. Certainly, no objection can be made to God's 
purposing everything, which will not lie against his purposing 
very many things, which he has clearly foretold. 

5. The universal purposes of God may be inferred from his 
universal providence. Whatever God does in time he must 
have proposed to do in eternity. But his providential agency 
is, in some sense, universal. This point I assume here. The 
proof of it will be furnished in a subsequent Lecture. A neces- 
sary inference from the assumption is, that the purposes of God 



188 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

are universal. It is literally true, not only that he "worketh all 
things" in his providence, but that he does it "after the counsel 
of his own will." 

The purposes of God are also eternal. They are expressly 
said to be eternal in the Scriptures. "According to the eternal 
purpose of God, which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord" 
(Eph. iii. 11). 

We have before shown that the purposes of God result direct- 
ly from his perfections, — more especially from his omniscience 
and his infinite benevolence. Hence, they must be eternal, like 
his perfections. 

Their immutability is also proof of their eternity. Men often 
change their purposes, but God never changes his. Why should 
he change them ? They are formed in view of all possible con- 
tingencies and circumstances. Nothing new or unanticipated 
can ever come up to make it desirable or proper for him to alter 
any of his plans. We may be sure, therefore, that they are not 
changed. They are immutable. Hence, whatever purposes the 
infinite God has now, or ever will have, he must have had from 
all eternity. 

Objections. * 

1. It is always objected to the doctrine here discussed, that 
it is inconsistent with human freedom. If the actions of men 
are all fixed and certain, in the eternal purpose of God, then 
how can man be free? — We shall have occasion to consider 
this objection more at large in another place. Suffice it, at 
present, to reply, first, that the purposes of God make the actions 
of men no more fixed and certain, and are on this account no 
more inconsistent with human freedom, than his foreknowledge. 
Yet those, for the most part, admit the universal foreknowledge 
of God who object to his purposes that they destroy free agency. 

We reply, secondly, that the previous certainty of actions 
(and this is all that the purposes and foreknowledge of God 
establish respecting them) is in no case inconsistent with their 
freedom. Men act just as freely when it is known beforehand 
to God, and often to their fellow-creatures, how they will act, 
as though nothing had been known or certain respecting them. 



THE DEGREES OR PURPOSES OF GOD. 189 

We reply, thirdly, it is an important part of the divine pur- 
pose respecting intelligent beings, that they shall be free. God 
as much purposed my moral freedom as he did my existence. 
Hence, I must be a free, responsible agent, or the purpose of 
God respecting me will not stand. In this view, the eternal 
purposes of God, instead of conflicting with the free agency of 
creatures, go the rather to establish it. 

I throw out these remarks with a view to aid inquiring minds 
in coming to a solution of the question before us. My final 
reply to the objection is, that whether we can reconcile the pur- 
poses of God with the free agency of man, or not, we certainly 
know that both doctrines are true. In thousands of instances 
God has revealed his purposes beforehand respecting events 
which involved the agency of his creatures ; such, for example, 
as the captivity and restoration of the Jews, aud the crucifixion 
of Christ ; and yet the human agents concerned in these events 
have acted with entire freedom, and are justly responsible for 
their conduct. 

2. It is further objected that the purposes of God, more espe- 
cially those which relate to the existence of sin and misery, are 
inconsistent with his goodness. But are they any more incon- 
sistent with the goodness of God than his providence ? Sin and 
misery do actually exist, and exist under the providential gov- 
ernment of God. And if it is not inconsistent with his goodness 
to cause, or to permit, their existence in time, how was it con- 
trary to his goodness to purpose their existence in eternity? 

If God permits the existence of evil, or if he purposed to per- 
mit it because he loves it and delights in it, this would be incon- 
sistent with his goodness. But if he permits and purposed its 
existence because he saw that he could overrule it for a greater 
good in the end, then his motives, in so doing, were good, and 
both his purposes and his providence stand clear. The benevo- 
lence of both may be easily vindicated. 

3. It has been objected that the Calvinistic doctrine of divine 
purposes is precisely similar to the heathen doctrine of fate. 
But this is far from being true. The fate of the heathen was a 
blind fate, an arbitrary fate, binding equally gods and men : 
whereas the purposes of which we speak are the preferences, 



190 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

the counsels of an infinitely wise and good Being, formed in 
view of the best reasons, and all tending to the noblest ends. 
Besides ; the believers in fate have always been fatalists, in the 
worst sense of the term ; denying human freedom and responsi- 
bility, and discarding the distinction between virtue and vice. 
But Calvinists, with scarcely an exception, have been the stren- 
uous advocates of human freedom, and have insisted that the 
distinction between virtue and vice, good and evil, is immutable 
and eternal. 

Many persons, alarmed at the supposed difficulties attending 
an admission of the great doctrine of divine purposes, have 
been inclined to reject it, and to adopt Arminian views in regard 
to this whole subject. But, by such a procedure, have they 
altogether escaped difficulties ? Are not the difficulties attend- 
ing the commonly received Arminian theories at least as formid- 
able as those which beset Calvinism ? 

Most Arminians believe in the universal and eternal fore- 
knowledge of God, but deny that his foreknowledge is founded 
on his purposes. On the contrary, they make his purpose the 
consequents of his foreknowledge. It was not till he had fore- 
seen how men would act, and in what way events generally 
would take place, that he was prepared to form any purpose 
respecting them. 

But enough has been said already to show that this theory is 
encumbered with insuperable difficulties. It devolves on those 
who embrace it to show on what the foreknowledge of God is 
based ; or what that is which makes those future events certain 
which foreknowledge merely perceives are certain. They must 
further show how the Divine Being, or any other being, can 
know that particular events in the future, which depend entirely 
on his sovereign pleasure, will be, until he has purposed or 
determined that they shall be. Nor is this all. Let those who 
hold that the foreknowledge of God precedes his purposes, show 
why God, on this ground, should have any purposes. Of what 
use to determine that a thing shall be when he already knows 
that it certainly will be? 

It will be perceived, also, that the objections commonly urged 
against the universal purposes of God lie with equal weight 



THE DECREES OR PURPOSES OF GOD. 191 

against this 'theory of universal foreknowledge. As remarked 
above, the former is no more inconsistent with human freedom 
than the latter. If universal foreknowledge can be reconciled 
with the unembarrassed free agency of man, universal decrees 
can be reconciled just as well, and after the same manner. 

Some have thought it to be inconsistent with the goodness of 
God that he should have purposed the existence of a world like 
this, in which there is so much sin and misery. But is it at all 
less inconsistent with the goodness of God to suppose him to 
have created this world, and to have entered on his work of 
providence over it, when he certainly knew what an amount of 
evil, both natural and moral, would thereby be incurred? He 
certainly knew, if he created the world, that sin would almost 
immediately enter it, and death by sin, and all the woes which 
have since followed in the train of sin, and are to result from it 
forever. Why, then, did he not stay his hand ? Why did he 
create such a world as this ? 

To avoid difficulties like these, some have even denied the 
universal foreknowledge of God; on the ground, either that 
there were some things which, in eternity, he preferred not to 
foreknow, or that they were of such a nature that he could not 
foreknow them. To the first of these theories, viz., that there 
were some things which, in eternity, God chose not to foreknow, 
I object, that he must have known what these things were, pr 
he could not have known that he had better not foreknow 
them; — which shows, at a glance, the utter absurdity of the 
supposition. To the theory that there are some things — for 
example, the free actions of men — of such a nature, that, in 
eternity, God could not foreknow them, I object, that, on this 
ground, God must be continually growing in knowledge. He 
knows ten thousand things to-day which he did not, and could 
not, know yesterday. What, then, is to become of God's eter- 
nal omniscience and his immutability ? 

To both these theories of partial foreknowledge, I urge the 
following objections : — 

1. They represent, not only God's purpose, but his providen- 
tial view of things, as comparatively a small matter. He has 
some plan respecting events in the natural world. At least, he 



192 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

foresees what they will be. But as to the entire range of events 
in the vast moral worlds- the free, responsible actions of crea- 
tures — they are all blank to him. He knows nothing about 
them. He has no plan or purpose or foresight in respect to 
them. 

2. These theories are inconsistent with the predictions of 
Scripture. The inspired writers assure us that God does fore- 
know the free actions of creatures, because, in thousands of 
instances, he has predicted them, and his predictions have come 
to pass. 

3. These theories are inconsistent with the perfections of God, 
and make him, in fact, no God at all. In illustration of this, 
we may apply the theories (where their abettors would prefer 
they should be applied) to the existence of sin and misery in 
the universe. When God created the angels, he had no thought 
that any. of them would ever sin ; but a multitude of them dis- 
appointed him ; they sinned and fell. And so when our first 
parents were created, and placed in the garden of Eden, God 
had no thought or expectation of their sinning ; but by some 
means, the devil succeeded in getting into the garden, where he 
seduced them, and they fell. And when God saw that they had 
fallen, he entered upon a plan of redemption, but without know- 
ing at all what would be the issue of the plan ; — whether any 
w.ould avail themselves of his offers of mercy, or whether all 
that he should do for them would be in vain. 

Such, then, is the doctrine of partial foreknowledge, in its 
bearing on the perfection and glory of the Supreme Being, — 
representing him as unworthy to be called by the name of God, 
or to be addressed as the Almighty Sovereign of the universe. 

In conclusion, I remark : let no one reject the doctrine of 
God's universal and eternal purposes, in hope of being rid of 
difficulties. If there are difficulties attending the reception of 
this doctrine, the difficulties of rejecting it are incomparably 
greater. It is a doctrine plainly revealed in the Bible. It is 
one of the utmost importance, in its practical results. It gives 
us the most exalted views of God, setting him high upon the 
throne, placing the entire universe in his hands, and subjecting 
it to his sovereign control. It is fitted, also, to sustain and 



THE DECREES OR PURPOSES OF GOD. 193 

comfort the people of God, more especially in seasons of dark- 
ness and adversity ; to give them a sense of his distinguishing 
goodness, and of their high obligations to be the Lord's. At 
the same time it is fitted, perhaps beyond any other doctrine, to 
try the hearts and humble the pride of rebellious men, and show 
them what manner of spirit they are of. 

It should be added, that this doctrine of God's purposes, is 
not exclusively one of revelation. Eesulting, as it does, from 
the very perfections of the Supreme Being, it may be clearly 
inferred from these perfections, even where the Bible is not 
enjoyed. And this accounts for it, that those who reject the 
doctrine are constrained, if consistent, to adopt unworthy views 
of God, — those which rob him of his perfections, and represent 
him as but an inferior divinity. Assuredly, all those who love 
God, — the God of nature and of the Bible, — who love to see 
him arrayed in all his adorable perfections, and exalted to the 
throne of absolute and universal dominion, — will love the doc- 
trine of his universal and eternal purposes- 

25 



194 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUEE XVI. 

ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 

Ln my last Lecture, we considered the subject of God's uni- 
versal and eternal purposes or decrees. Intimately connected 
with this great subject, so as to constitute an important branch 
of it, is the doctrine of election. All those who will be finally 
saved it must have been the choice or purpose of God, in eter- 
nity, to save ; and this eternal choice or purpose, in regard to 
their salvation, was their election. 

In order rightly to understand the doctrine of election, it is 
necessary to regard it, not as a separate and independent 
doctrine ; but as a connected branch of a much greater doc- 
trine ; viz., that of GocVs universal and eternal purposes. Many 
persons seem to regard the salvation of the elect as almost the 
only thing that was settled in the eternal purpose of God, and 
the doctrine of election as standing out alone, and by itself. 
But the salvation of the elect is no more secured, in the eternal 
purpose of God, than is every other future event or contingency. 
Nor is the final salvation of the elect any more fixed, in the 
divine purpose, than are all the means of their salvation ; all 
the circumstances and influences tending to promote it, and all 
the consequences resulting from it. 

The doctrine of election is frequently and most expressly 
asserted in the Scriptures. Christ speaks often of those whom 
his Father had given him, and says that for them the kingdom of 
heaven was prepared before the foundation of the world (Matt, 
xxv. 34). Paul tells us that believers were chosen in Christ 
before the foundation of the world"; that God had, "in the 
beginning, chosen them to salvation" ; that they were "called 
with a holy calling, according to the purpose and grace which 






ELECTION AND EEPEOBATION. 195 

was given them in Christ Jesus, before the world began" (Eph. 
i. 4; 2 Thes. ii. 13; 2 Tim. i. 9). "Meet, according to the 
foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the 
Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Christ " 
(1 Pet. i. 2). 

Arminians regard the decree of election, like all the other de- 
crees of God, as depending on his foreknowledge. Foreseeing 
that certain individuals will repent and believe in Christ, he 
chooses such to everlasting life. But to this view of the case 
there are insuperable objections. 

1. It was proved in my last Lecture that the foreknowledge 
of God is, in all cases, the result of his purposes, and not his 
purposes the result of his foreknowledge. 

2. The theory before us supposes the first motions of the sin- 
ner towards repentance and salvation to be from himself, and 
not from the divine Spirit and grace. Foreseeing that certain 
individuals will make these first efforts, God determines to meet 
them by his grace, and crown their endeavors with success. 
But the representations of Scripture on the subject are just the 
opposite of this. The sinner is there described as in a state of 
entire spiritual death ; and sure to remain, in such a state until 
arrested by the Holy Spirit. The first motions towards repent- 
ance are not from the sinner, but from God. Of course, then, 
there is nothing good in the sinner to be seen, or foreseen, as 
the ground of his election ; but his election, and the consequent 
grace and assistance of the Spirit, are the ground of his recovery 
and salvation. 

3. The view here presented is in literal accordance with the 
teachings of the Apostle Paul on the subject. He assures us 
that believers were chosen in eternity, not because God foresaw 
that they would be holy, but that "they should be holy, and 
without blame, before him in love" (Eph. i. 4). They were 
predestinated " to be conformed to the image of his Son " (Rom. 
viii. 29) . They were M elect, through sanctification of the Spirit, 
unto obedience" (1 Pet. i. 2). Hence their obedience was not 
the cause, but the consequence of their election. 

It follows, from what has been said, that the election of be- 
lievers in eternity was not conditional. It was not conditioned, as 



196 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

some suppose, upon their repentance, or their foreseen repent- 
ance, but was itself the source and origin of that grace which 
resulted in their repentance. 

Still, in the election of his people, God had (as he ought to 
have) a due regard to character. But in what way? Not to 
foreseen good character as the ground or reason of it, but to 
holy character as the result of it ; or, more properly, as part of 
it, as included in it. Believers were chosen in Christ " that they 
should be holy"; predestinated "to be conformed to the image of 
his Son"; elect, " unto obedience " The election of believers 
secures their ultimate good character and fitness for heaven, and 
never saves any who do not become morally fit for heaven. 

We are not to suppose, however, because the foreseen good 
character of believers is not the ground or reason of their elec- 
tion, that the purposes of God, in respect to this important mat- 
ter, are capricious, arbitrary, and without reason. He must be 
supposed to have had the best reasons for choosing some, rather 
than others, to everlasting life ; though in no case, except where 
he has made a particular revelation, can we so much as conjec- 
ture what these reasons were. To the Apostle Paul, the reason 
of his election and consequent conversion was revealed. "For 
this cause, i" obtained mercy, that in me, first, Jesus Christ might 
show forth all long-suffering , for a pattern to them which should 
hereafter believe on him to life everlasting" (1 Tim. i. 16). 
But, except in the case of this great apostle, I am not aware that 
a particular revelation on this subject has ever been made. The 
reasons why some are chosen, rather than others, though infi- 
nitely wise and good,* are at present among the secret things 
which belong only to God. 

" Not Gabriel asks the reason why, 
Nor God the reason gives ; 
Nor dares the fav'rite angel pry- 
Between the folded leaves," 

In reference to one particular we know, indeed, what these 
reasons are not. They are not foreseen repentance and holiness. 
But as to what, in ordinary cases, they are, we have no means 
of knowing, and may not undertake to decide. 



ELECTION AND EEPEOBATION. 197 

Objections. 

1. It is objected to the doctrine of election, as here stated, 
that it represents God as a partial Being. He is, in the worst 
sense of the terms, "a respecter of persons." But we have a 
sufficient answer to this objection in the remarks just made. 
Partiality consists, not in treating creatures differently, in view 
of good and sufficient reasons, but in treating them differently 
without such reasons. A father with a large family of sons, 
may be strictly impartial, and yet not treat either two of them 
precisely alike : because he may have very good reasons for not 
treating them alike. So if God has good reasons for treating 
his creatures differently in this world, or in the other world ; if 
he has good reasons for electing some to everlasting life, and 
leaving others to perish in their sins, — as we are bound to 
believe that he has, — then he does not, on this account, subject 
himself to the charge of partiality. He is not, in the bad sense 
of the phrase, a " respecter of persons." 

2. It is objected to the doctrine of election, that it makes God 
unjust. But how unjust? Do those who are left to suffer en- 
dure anything more than they deserve ; or more than they must 
have endured, had the whole fallen race, of man been left to go 
to destruction together? It was no injustice to the laborers in 
the vineyard, who had borne the burden and heat of the day, 
that those who came in at the eleventh hour received the same 
wages as themselves. They received all that they had contracted 
for, — all that they had earned ; and why should they complain ? 
And just so in the case before us. That saving mercy is shown 
to the elect, is no injury to the non-elect. They suffer no more 
than their proper deserts, and of course have no reason to com- 
plain of injustice. 

3. It is further objected to the doctrine of election, that it is 
inconsistent with the use of means. "If I am elected I shall be 
saved, and if not elected I cannot be, whether I use means or 
not." To this I answer, first, that the objection applies equally 
to any other subject, as to that of salvation. The husbandman 
may as well say, "If I am to have a crop, I shall have one, 
whether I use the means or not," as to say, " If I am to be saved, 



198 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

I shall be, whether I use the means or not." Yet the common 
sense of every one is sufficient to refute the cavil in the former 
case ; and why not in the latter ? 

But secondly, the doctrine of election, properly explained, so 
far from furnishing any ground for this objection, entirely re- 
moves it. Means are decreed as well as ends ; and as being 
absolutely necessary in order to the accomplishment of their ends. 
Hence, in every case the appointed means must be used, else the 
end in view will not be realized. Those who, from the begin- 
ning, were chosen to salvation, must become holy, and meet in 
character for heaven ; for they were chosen that they should be 
holy, and without blame before God in love. Hence, they must 
use the requisite means of becoming holy. They can become 
holy and be saved in no other way. 

4. It is further objected to the doctrine before us, that the 
election spoken of in the Bible refers to nations and not to indi- 
viduals, and is an election to peculiar privileges, and not to 
salvation. In this sense the Jews are sometimes spoken of as a 
chosen people. If the statement here made were to be admitted, 
I see not but the same objection would lie against it as against 
the proper doctrine of election. For if God may elect a people 
to peculiar privileges in this world, why may he not elect an 
individual to peculiar privileges and blessings, even all the 
blessings of salvation, in the world to come? But the statement 
in the objection is not to be admitted. The election spoken of 
in many passages of the New 'Testament, is an election, not of 
communities or nations, but of individuals ; and an election, not 
to privileges in this life, but to eternal salvation. Were nations, 
as such, "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world"? 
Were they " chosen to salvation through sanctification of the 
Spirit and belief of the truth " ? 

Intimately connected with the doctrine of divine purposes, 
and of election, is what has been called the doctrine of reproba- 
tion. If we believe that, in eternity, God purposed the salvation 
of those who will finally be saved, we must believe that he also 
purposed the destruction of all those who will be finally lost ; 
and this doctrine, like that of election, is plainly taught in the 
Scriptures. The Apostle Peter, speaking of those who stumble 



ELECTION AND KEPROBATION. 199 

at the word and are disobedient, adds "whereunto also they 
were appointed" (1 Pet. ii. 8). Jude speaks of ungodly men 
"who were before, of old, ordained to condemnation" (v. 4). 
The writer of the Apocalypse also speaks of some whose " names 
were not written in the book of life, from the foundation of the 
world" (Rev. xvii. 8). Of course, they were, from the founda- 
tion of the world, left out of it; or, which is the same, reprobated. 

Reprobation, like election, we holdto be unconditional. In 
other words, the reprobation of an individual is not conditioned 
on his foreseen incorrigibly sinful character. Still, the decree 
of reprobation supposes and includes the incorrigibly bad char- 
acter of all those who are the subjects of it, just as the opposite 
decree includes the repentance and spiritual recovery of all the 
elect. Election never saved a persistently wicked man, and it 
never will. Reprobation never destroyed a good man, and it 
never will. It was certain to the mind of God from all eternity 
— because he had so purposed it — that his elect should come 
to repentance, persevere in holiness, and at length be made 
meet for heaven ; and that the non-elect would go on in their 
sins freely, persistently, incorrigibly, until their ruin was 
complete. 

It should also be said that the decree of reprobation, like that 
of election, is not an arbitrary one, formed without reason. It 
proceeds, in all cases, on the best of reasons, though we may 
not be able to determine (except where God has revealed it)" 
what these reasons are. Pharaoh was a reprobate, and God has 
condescended to inform us why he was so. "For this cause 
have I raised thee up, for to show my power in thee, and that 
my name may be declared through all the earth" (Ex. ix. 16). 
But, except in the case of Pharaoh, I know not that God has 
ever made any such revelation. 

Some persons regard reprobation as in all respects the coun- 
terpart of election ; but clearly this is not the case. In election 
God determines to bestow special grace, and pluck the individ- 
ual subjects of it as brands from the burning. But in reproba- 
tion God does not determine to exert any special influence, with 
a view to fit men for destruction. No such influence is needed 
in the case. He rather determines, for wise reasons unknown 



200 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

to us, to withhold special, converting grace, and leave the rep- 
robate to their own hearts' wanderings. They are not con- 
strained to sin and to suffer, but are left to the unrestrained 
exercise of their own corruptions, — in which way their ruin is 
speedily and certainly accomplished. 

I have said that the reprobate are left of God, — given over 
to their own hearts' lusts. By this we do not understand that 
they are left as to God's general providential agency ; for left in 
this sense, they would not be moral agents, — would not exist. 
But they are left as to the bestowment of special converting 
grace. This grace God is under no obligations, in point of 
justice, to bestow upon any sinner. Hence, he may have mercy 
on whom he will have mercy ; and those whom he passes by, 
and whom, in eternity, he purposed to pass by, have no reason 
to complain. 

Objections. 

Some of the objections to the decree of reprobation, such as 
that it is inconsistent with man's free agency, and, with the use 
of means, are the same that are commonly urged against the 
general doctrine of God's purposes and his decree of election, 
and are to be answered in the same way. There are other 
objections peculiar to reprobation, on which we must bestow a 
moment's attention. 

It is ^objected, in the first place, that God would not have 
made provision in the gospel for the salvation of all men, if it 
had been his purpose, from eternity, that some should not be 
saved. But why not? The provisions of God's grace are one 
thing ; man's acceptance or rejection of these provisions is quite 
another thing. Arminians believe that a portion of the human 
race will not accept the provisions of the gospel, and will perish 
in their sins ; and that all this was distinctly known to the 
Infinite Mind from eternity. Why, then, did he make provi- 
sions which he knew would not be accepted? Why did he 
offer salvation to those who he knew would only trifle with it, 
and thereby incur the greater guilt? When our Arminian 
friends have removed these difficulties, they will have little 



ELECTION AKD REPROBATION. 201 

trouble with those which lie at the basis of the objection above 
proposed. 

Again, it is objected to the doctrine of reprobation, that God 
" will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of 
the truth " (1 Tim. ii. 4). But will all men be actually saved 
and come to the knowledge of the truth? This Arminians, who 
urge the objection, do not believe. They agree with the Cal- 
vinists, that some men will finally be lost. What, then, will 
they make of the passage quoted in the objection, but that God 
wills, in some sense, the salvation of all men, while it has 
entered into his great plan of providence that all are not to be 
saved ? In what way will they interpret this and other like 
passages, but by setting up the important distinction insisted 
on in my last Lecture, between the desires of God, which are 
crossed by every act of sin, and the purposes of God, which are 
never frustrated ? 

It is further objected that reprobation is inconsistent with the 
sincerity of God, in urging the universal offers and invitations 
of the gospel.; making these offers, so for as the non-elect are 
concerned, no better than mockery. It is a full vindication of 
God's sincerity in the offers and invitations of the gospel, that 
they are in strict accordance with his benevolent desires. He 
hath "no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the 
wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezek. xxxiii. 11). He 
willeth not, in itself considered, "that any should perish, but 
that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. iii. 9). These 
benevolent desires for the salvation of all men are appropriately 
expressed in the universal offers and invitations of the gospel, . 
and in the manner in which these are urged. What is sincerity, 
in any case, but the conformity of our pretensions to the desires 
and feelings of our* hearts? If, then, God says what he feels, 
in urging the invitations of his gospel ; if his words are a true 
expression of his heart ; then is his sincerity sufficiently vin- 
dicated. 

It is sometimes said that reprobation makes the salvation of a 
part of the human race impossible. But in what sense impos- 
sible? Not naturally sov Not in any such sense impossible as 
to interfere with freedom, or excuse -from blame. The ffon-elect 

26 



202 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

have the same natural capacities and powers as the elect. The 
same Saviour has died for them ; the same offers, are made to 
them ; the same motives and obligations are urged upon them. 
The non-elect may repent and be saved, if they will. To be 
sure, it is certain to the mind of God that they never ivill repent; 
and this is all the impossibility in the case. When they might 
repent, and ought to repent ; when God desires their repent- 
ance, and most sincerely urges the duty upon them, it is certain 
to his all-seeing eye that they never will repent. They will go 
.011 in their sins freely, voluntarily, uncorrected and unre- 
strained, until iniquity proves their ruin. 



THE PURPOSES OF GOD, AS SEEN IN HIS WORKS. 203 



LECTUKE XVII. 

THE PURPOSES OF GOD, AS SEEN IN HIS WORKS. 

As the works of God fulfil his purposes, so they are the grand 
revealer of his purposes. Except in a few leading particulars, 
which have been made matter of special revelation, they are the 
only revealer of his purposes. Whatever God does in time, we 
know that it was his purpose to do in eternity. " Who worketh 
all things after the counsel of his own will." But aside from 
the disclosures which are made in the works of God, we have no 
means at all of knowing, in the general, what his purposes are. 
They are shrouded, so far as we can discover, in impenetrable 
darkness. They are the secrets of his holy will, for the evolv- 
ing of which we should be prepared, but into which we are not 
permitted to look. v 

And as the works of God reveal his purposes, they are, per- 
haps, the best medium tnrough which to investigate his purposes. 
They hold up a light, in view of which his purposes can best be 
understood. In the following Lecture, I propose to avail my- 
self chiefly of this light. I propose to inquire into the purposes 
of God, as these are unfolded in his works. What, then, does 
God work? And how does he work? And what lisjht do his 
works of creation, providence, and redemption shed on the 
subject of his purposes ? 

1. God works in his providence according to fixed and estab- 
lished laws. These are sometimes called the laws of nature. 
They run alike through the worlds of matter and of mind, and 
are never interrupted, except in the case of miracles. And these 
laws are not only uniform, but they are wise and good. The 
more they are investigated, the more they are seen to be wise 
and good ; and the greater reason have God's intelligent crea- 
tures to be satisfied with them ^ and thankful for them. 



204 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Such, then, is the manner in which God actually governs the 
world, — by wise, reasonable, and established laws* Hence we 
know that, from all eternity, he purposed to govern the world 
in this way. His purposes, in this respect, are unfolded in his 
works ; and they are seen to be, not those arbitrary things 
which some suppose, but altogether reasonable, wise, and good. 

2. In the providential government of God, we uniformly see 
means and ends going together. The great ends of his govern- 
ment God accomplishes usually, perhaps invariably., by appro- 
priate means. So it is in the natural world ; and equally so in 
the moral world. . If a crop is to be raised, or a journey to be 
performed, or an estate to be gained, there must be means. Or 
if an education is to be acquired, or a soul to be converted, or a 
believer to be sanctified and made meet for heaven, there must 
be means. Means are as indispensable in the one case as in the 
other. 

Such then, in another view, is the manner in which God car- 
ries on his work of providence, — in which he governs the worlds 
both of matter and of mind. And hence, on this point, we know 
what were God's eternal purposes. He purposed to govern the 
world by means. In his purposes, -as well as in his providence, 
means and ends are connected together. 

It is sometimes said that the divine • purposes supersede the 
use of means, and render them superfluous? If God has pur- 
posed that a thing shall be then it will be, whether means are 
used or not. But we learn from this subject, that God's pur- 
poses never interfere with the use of means. On the contrary, 
they bind means and ends together. They bind them so insep- 
arably, indispensably together, that where the appropriate means 
are not used the end is never to be expected. 

To illustrate this, we. have an instance in point in the sacred 
history. During Paul's voyage to Rome, it was revealed to him 
that not one soul on board the ship with him should be lost; 
they all should get safe to land. Such was the revealed pur- 
pose of God respecting them. But means were necessary to 
effect this purpose. The. ship's company were to be saved 
through the instrumentality of the sailors. Hence, when Paul 
saw the sailors preparing to escape, he said : " Except these 



THE PURPOSES OF GOD, AS SEEN IN HIS WORKS. 205 

abide in«the ship, ye cannot be saved" (Acts xxvii. 31). Here, 
a revealed purpose of God would have been frustrated, if the 
means of its accomplishment had not been employed. And so 
in every other case. God works by means. He purposed, from 
all eternity, to work by means. Hence, where appropriate means 
are not employed, the end is, in no case, to be expected. 

3. It is a fact that, under the providential government of God, 
man is a, free, responsible agent. He acts from choice. He does 
as he pleases. He has all the freedom of which he can conceive, 
and is conscious of being- justly responsible for his actions. 
Such are the facts in regard to the moral freedom of man, under 
the providential government of God. And now what is the 
inference as to the eternal purpose of God respecting him ? 
Obviously this, that man should be a free, responsible agent. 
Man is a dependent creature of God. God made him what he 
is ; God sustains and controls him as he is ; and hence, as he is* 
a free, responsible agent, it entered into the eternal purpose of 
God that he should be so. 

The purposes of God are sometimes thought to be inconsistent 
with human freedom. "If God has purposed all our circum- 
stances and actions, then* they must be just as they are, and how 
can we be free?" But it seems, from the view here taken, that 
God's eternal purposes, so far from interfering with human 
freedom, go to establish it. It was an important part of God's 
purpose that man should be free. God as much decreed my 
moral freedom as he did my existence ; and the former could 
no more fail than the latter. 

4. Another feature of the divine administration is, that God 
hears and answers prayer. He has required his intelligent 
creatures in this world to pray. He has given them the greatest 
encouragement to pray. And when they do pray in a proper 
spirit and manner, he actually hears them, and sends them an- 
swers of peace. Such, in this view, are the facts of God's moral 
administration ; and what, I again ask, is the inference as to his 
eternal purposes? Certainly, we can draw no other than this, 
that it entered into God's purpose, from all eternity, that he 
would hear and answer prayer. 

The purposes of God are sometimes thought to be inconsistent 



206 ' CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

with prayer. " If everything is fixed and settled in the divine 
purpose, what can prayer do? And why should prayer, under 
any circumstances, be offered?" Now the view we have taken 
shows us, that the purposes of God, so far from interfering with 
the duty of prayer, rather make prayer necessary. It was a 
part of God's eternal purpose that Christians should pray, and 
that he would listen to their prayers, and in mercy answer their 
requests. The divine purposes go to establish, and not destroy, 
the ground and the necessity of prayer. 

5. In his providence, God invariably connects holy character 
and right conduct with inward peace and happiness in this 
world, and with eternal blessedness in the life to come ; while 
he connects sinful character and conduct with unhappiness here, 
and, if persisted in, with endless miseries hereafter. In other 
words, the characters and conduct of men in this world are 
followed by a righteous retribution. " Whatsoever a man sow- 
eth, that shall he also reap." Such are the facts of God's gov- 
ernment in regard to the consequences of our actions ; a part of 
which we see taking place around us, and the remainder of 
which God has revealed to us in his Word. And knowing these 
facts, we know, of course, in respect to this matter, what were 
God's eternal purposes. He purposed, from all eternity, that 
he would reward the righteous, and punish the wicked : or that 
the conduct of his creatures, in this world, should be followed 
by a righteous and endless retribution. 

Some have thought that the doctrine of God's purposes was 
inconsistent with the very idea of retribution; — that if the 
actions of men were all fixed and determined in the counsels of 
heaven, eternal ages before they were born, then, whatever 
their conduct might be, they deserved neither praise nor blame, 
reward nor punishment. But we have seen that the purposes 
of God, so far from interfering with the doctrine of retribution, 
go the rather to establish it. That the righteous should be 
rewarded and the wicked punished, and that all should be 
treated, finally, according to their works, — this constituted an 
important part of the divine purpose from all eternity. 

I have introduced the foregoing particulars for the purpose 
of illustrating the general truth, that the works of God reveal 



THE PURPOSES OF GOD, AS SEEN IN HIS WORKS. 207 

his purposes, — or whatever he does in time, we may know it 
was his purpose to do before time began. Let us now advance a 
step in the argument, and say, that whatever it is proper for God 
to do in his providence, it must have been as proper for him to 
purpose to do in eternity. Is not this proposition self-eviclently 
true ? Gan any reasonable person doubt it ? Can there be any 
valid objection to God's forming & purpose to do that in eternity, 
which it is proper and right for him to do in time ? 

Let us, then, take this self-evident' truth, apply it to some of 
the actual dealings of God's providence, and see if it does not 
furnish some new light, and some relief to our minds, in regard 
to his eternal purposes. And, — 

1. Let us apply the truth in question to the existence of sin 
and misery in the world. That sin and misery actually exist, 
and exist somehow, in the providence of God, no one can doubt. 
Nor will any one call in question the propriety of God's dealings 
in respect to this matter. Whether we can explain the facts of 
the case, or not, we shall all say that the divine character stands 
clear. God did right undoubtedly, — he acted wisely and well, 
as he always does, — in the permission of evil. But if it was 
right for God, in time, to permit sin and sorrow to enter his 
dominions, then it was right for him, in eternity, to form his 
plan accordingly. If, somehow or other, he has done well in 
suffering the existence of these terrible evils, he did just as well 
in purposing their existence. If there is no valid objection to 
what God has actually done in this matter, there can be none to 
what he purposed to do before the world began. 

2. It is a fact that God treats his creatures, in this world, as 
a sovereign. He brings them into existence ivhen and how he 
pleases ; through the whole course of their lives, he treats them 
as he pleases ; and when he is pleased to take them away, he 
does it without asking or seeking their permission. In the cir- 
cumstances of men here on the earth there is a great diversity. 
No two are treated precisely alike. Some are rich and some 
poor ; some are sick and some well ; some honored and some 
despised. The lives of some are protracted to a long period, 
while others are snatched away almost as soon as they are born. 
No one can doubt that there are these differences in the circum- 



208 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

stances of men, and that they take place under the government 
of God. And no one will presume to say that, in ordering the 
circumstances of his creatures after this manner, God is not 
doing right. But if God actually does right, in the sovereign 
dispensations of his providence, was it not right for him in eter- 
nity to form his plans accordingly ? If no valid objection can 
be urged against his acts, can there be. any objection to his hav- 
ing purposed those acts ? Can it have been wrong for God, in 
eternity, to have formed a plan which it is right for him, in 
time, to execute? And yet there are many persons who dare 
not object to God's sovereign dispensations, who do object to 
his sovereign purposes. They have no doubt that his provi- 
dences are all right, and that they ought to submit to them, 
while they complain of his purposes, as unjust and cruel. 

3. All" evangelical Christians believe that . God will finally 
save one portion of the human race and destroy the remainder. 
They believe that such are the unequivocal teachings of the 
Holy Scriptures. In the morning of the last day some are to 
be raised " to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlast- 
ing contempt. " And in the issue of that great day, the wicked 
are to " go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous 
into life eternal." Such is the disposition to be finally made of 
the members of the human family. They will be separated one 
from another, and be made vessels of mercy, or vessels of wrath, 
to all eternity. And in making this disposition of them, evan- 
gelical Christians all believe that God will do perfectly right. 
He will not act without reason, but from the best of reasons. 
He will not save or destroy without respect to character, but 
according to character. He will treat every man according to 
his works. 

But if it will be right for God, in the manner and on the 
grounds here set forth, to save one portion of the human race, 
and destroy the remainder, can it be wrong for him to have 
purposed to do this from all eternity? If the awards of the final 
day will be just and right, can the purposes of eternity in respect 
to these same awards be wrong or unreasonable ? 

And now what is there, in this view, so very objectionable in 
the doctrines of election and reprobation ? The doctrine of elec- 



THE PURPOSES OF GOD, AS SEEN IN HIS WORKS. 209 

tiou is but the sovereign purpose of God to save all those of the 
human race who will finally be saved ; and reprobation is his 
sovereign purpose to pass by the remainder, and leave them to 
their own chosen way. And if God will do perfectly right, at 
the last, in receiving the righteous to heaven, and dooming the 
wicked to hell, can he have been otherwise than right, # in form- 
ing his eternal purposes accordingly ? The purposes of God in 
regard to this great matter are no more objectionable than his 
acts. They were formed on the same grounds, and for the 
same reasons. Hence, those who have naught to object against 
the latter, ought not to object or complain in regard to the 
former. 

We learn from the remarks which have been made (what was 
stated at the commencement of the Lecture) , that the best mode 
of investigating the great, the solemn, and I had almost said the 
awful subject of God's eternal purposes, is to do it in the light 
of his works. To be sure, this subject is introduced in the 
Bible. We learn there the fact of God's purposes. We learn 
the extent and the character of them. We learn, too, in a few 
leading particulars, what these purposes are. By the mouth of 
his holy prophets, God has revealed them. But, for further 
information, we are referred expressly to his works. "Who 
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." The 
works of God fulfil his purposes. His works also reveal his 
purposes. And through the medium of his works his purposes — 
as to the nature, the character, and reasons of them — can best 
be Understood. If true Christians would but look at this sub- 
ject in the right direction, and study it in a proper spirit and 
manner, there would be little more difference of opinion in 
regard to it. All who are agreed touching the dispensations of 
God would be agreed as to his purposes ; since the former are 
but the indexes and exponents of the latter. 

It follows from what has been said, that those who are truly 
reconciled to the government of God will be reconciled to his 
purposes, so soon as they understand them. The objections of 
many to the purposes of God are the result, there can be no 
doubt, of misapprehension. They do not understand them 
correctly. They entertain mistaken views of them, — views to 

27 



210 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

which no Christian ought to be reconciled. But let any person 
understand the doctrine of God's purposes as he has revealed 
them, — as they are disclosed to us in his works and in his 
word, and if he loves the government of God he ivill love his 
purposes. If he is reconciled to the former he certainly will be 
to the latter. How can it be otherwise ? As the works of God 
are but the carrying out, the completion, the consummation of 
his purposes, the character of both must be the same ; and to 
quarrel with the one is virtually to quarrel with the other. 

I trust that we may not have it in our hearts to quarrel with 
either. God is glorious in his dispensations. They are all 
fraught with wisdom and with goodness. They may seem dark 
and trying to us at times, but we know that they are all aimed, 
designed, and most wisely planned, to promote the noblest 
ends, — the highest glory of the Creator, and the highest good 
of the intelligent universe. Such are the sovereign dispensa- 
tions of God; and what Christian does not love them, and 
rejoice in them? 

But these works of God are not random efforts, put forth on 
special occasions and to meet emergencies. They are all of 
them parts of one infinite, eternal, and glorious plan. They all 
go to illustrate that plan. They serve to reveal it, and to fulfil 
it, — to carry it forward to its final consummation. And is it 
not a comforting thought that God has such a plan ; that be 
works according to it ; that no event is unforeseen or in vain ; 
but that all are conspiring in the purpose of God and in his 
providence, to promote his highest glory and the greatest good? 
With views such as these, the Christian need never despond or 
be afraid. He can sympathize with the Psalmist, when he said : 
"I set the Lord always before my face; therefore, I shall not 
be moved;" and with Paul, when he said: "Kejoice in the 
Lord always, and again I say, Rejoice" 



ABUSES AND USES OF THE DOCTRINE OF GOD'S PURPOSES . 211 



LECTURE XVIII. 

ABUSES AND USES OF THE DOCTRINE OF GOD'S .PURPOSES. 

My present object will be to point out, first, the more common 
abuses, and, secondly, the practical uses of the great doctrine 
which has been before us in the preceding Lectures. 

1. It is an abuse of the purposes of God to endeavor to pry 
into the nature and grounds of them, any farther than these are 
revealed. In some leading particulars God has been pleased, 
by his holy prophets, to make known his purposes. But beyond 
these particular revelations or predictions, we have no knowl- 
edge. We are left in utter, blank ignorance. Men have not 
been satisfied, however, to remain in ignorance. Attempts have 
been made, in all ages, to open the sealed book, and pry into 
the secret counsels of the Most High. This was the object of 
the various pretences to divination and augury, which prevailed 
among the ancient heathen. This is the object of soothsayers 
and fortune-tellers of the present day. Nor are those who think 
and talk about religion entirely free from this error. Some per- 
sons presumptuously decide that they are not in the number of 
God's elect, and give themselves over to consequent despair. 
With equal presumption, others decide that they are'm the Dum- 
ber of the elect, and, in a vain confidence of heaven, neglect to 
prepare for it. Some rashly conclude that individuals around 
them are certainly reprobates, and relinquish all effort for their 
conversion and salvation. Conclusions of this nature, and the 
practices growing out of them, are very likely to be sinful. They 
are an unwarrantable prying into those secret things which belong- 
only to the Infinite Mind. 

And it is equally presumptuous, in most cases, to decide as to 
the grounds or reasons of God's determinations. What can we 



212 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

know respecting the reasons of them, any farther than these are 
unfolded in his works, or in his word? He doubtless has rea- 
sons, the best reasons, for what he purposes and what he does ; 
and in some few instances 'these may be plain to us. But 
beyond where they are made plain we have no occasion, nor 
are we at liberty to search. 

2. It is an abuse of God's purposes to set them in opposition 
to human freedom and responsibility. This has been often done, 
and is done 'now. ( "If God has an eternal purpose, according 
to which all events are ordered, then man is a machine. He 
must act just as he does, and has no freedom or responsibility 
left." But is not this a rash and unwarrantable inference ? Is 
it not rushing upon a conclusion in the dark? So much has 
been said on this subject in my previous Lectures, that I need 
.not enlarge upon it here. The fact of God's eternal purposes is, 
on the one hand, demonstrable. On the other hand, we know 
that man is a free agent. He has all the freedom which a 
creature can have, and freedom enough to render him entirely 
responsible. Suppose, then, that we caiinot reconcile these two 
ideas. Are we sure that they cannot be reconciled, and that 
we are authorized to set the one in opposition to the other? 
Who of the sons of earth is competent to draw such a conclusion 
as this T 

3. It is an abuse of God's purposes to confound them with his 
law, or to undertake to accomplish them in violation of his law. 
Misguided and unprincipled men have not unfrequently at- 
tempted to do this. "Manifest destiny," and not the law of 
God, has been the guide and principle of their actions. Thus 
the Crusaders, believing that it was God's purpose that the infi- 
dels in Palestine should be destroyed, entered heartily upon the 
•bloody work of destroying them. The advocates of slavery 
sometimes think to justify themselves, by alleging the divine 
purpose that negroes should be slaves. The wasters and destroy- 
ers of the aborigines of this country have often urged the same 
argument. " It is undoubtedly the purpose of God that the red 
man should disappear before the white man. Therefore, let us 
be rid of him as soon as possible." But all such modes of judg- 
ing are in the highest degree delusive and unwarrantable. The 



ABUSES ANP USES OF THE DOCTRINE OF GOD'S PURPOSES. 213 

law of God is to be the rule of our actions. His great plan of 
providence is a very different matter. This is known but in a 
few particulars, and so far as known, was never intended to be 
to us a rule of conduct. David knew it was the purpose of God 
that Saul should be overthrown, and that he should have the 
kingdom of Israel. But David did not feel authorized, on this 
account, to take the life of Saul. Jeremiah knew it was the 
purpose of God that the eTewish capital and temple should fall 
into the hands of the king of Babylon. Still, he did not think 
himself authorized, on this account, to unite with the Babylonians 
in the work of destruction. 

4. It is an abuse of God's purposes to set them in opposition 
to the calls and invitations of the gospel. The invitations of the 
gospel are made alike to all men. " Come unto me, all ye that 
labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." "Whoso- 
ever will, let him come, and. take the waters of life freely." 
These universal invitations are made by the Saviour in all sin- 
cerity. And those who preach the gospel of Christ are required 
to urge them sincerely, earnestly, and indiscriminately, upon all 
their hearers. But in doing this, ministers have sometimes felt 
an embarrassment from the doctrine of God's purposes ; more 
especially his purpose of election. "If God has purposed to 
save only a part of the human race, why does he extend his 
invitations to all? How can he do it with sincerity? And how 
can I (believing, as I do, the doctrine of election) invite and 
urge all men to come to the knowledge of the truth ? " This is 
not the place to attempt reconciling the doctrine of election with 
the free and universal invitations of the gospel. Nor if it were, 
after what was said in a former Lecture, would such a labor be 
at all necessary. That both doctrines are true, and consequently 
reconcilable, there can be no doubt. Whether we can reconcile 
them or not, to the view of God, they are, beyond question, 
harmoniously consistent. Consequently, it is an abuse of these 
important Christian verities, to array them one against the other. 
It is an abuse of God's invitations to array them against his pur- 
poses ; and it is an abuse of his purposes to array them against 
his invitations. The minister of God's truth may safely follow 
Christ and his inspired apostles, in respect to this matter. Let 



214 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

him present the invitations of the gospel, and urge its motives, 
with as much impression and power, and with as little embar- 
rassment of any kind, as though God had not formed or revealed 
any purpose at all respecting the final salvation of men. 

5. It is an abuse of God's purposes to make them the occasion 
of inducing sloth, or discouraging effort, on the part of Christians. 
Professing Christians believe that God has purposes respecting 
the salvation of individuals ; that he is able to accomplish his 
purposes ; that all his elect will be gathered in ; and in these 
views they sometimes find a pillow for their consciences, and an 
excuse for sloth. This excuse is the more dangerous, because 
it is associated, usually, with high notions of orthodoxy. Per- 
sons, under its influence, think themselves very orthodox, it 
may be almost exclusively so, while they pervert their ortho- 
doxy to purposes of sloth and carnal indulgence. 

It is remarkable that the excuse here spoken of is allowed to 
have influence only in the concerns of religion. God's purposes 
extend to all other events, as well as to the final salvation of 
individuals. It is as certain, in the spring, whether or not the 
husbandman shall have a crop, as whether the souls of his chil- 
dren and neighbors shall be saved. Yet he uses all necessary 
means to secure the one, while he leaves it to what he calls 
divine sovereignty to take care of the other. How long shall 
the children of this world be wiser in their generation than the 
children of light ? And how long shall the professed children 
of light be wiser in things pertaining to this world, than in those 
pertaining to the kingdom of Christ ? 

6. Impenitent men abuse the purposes of God, when they 
urge them as an excuse for continuing in sin. This species of 
abuse is near akin to the one last mentioned, and is of continual 
occurrence. How many are there who, when pressed on the 
subject of religion, are ever ready to reply : " Why should we 
give ourselves any trouble about it? If it is the purpose of God 
to save us, we shall be saved ; and if not, we cannot be, let us 
do what we may," I hardly need say that we have here an 
egregious abuse of the doctrine of God's purposes, and an appli- 
cation of hV to the concerns of religion, which is never made in 
the ordinary affairs of life. The avaricious man does not say: 



ABUSES AND USES OP THE DOOTKINE OF GOD'S PURPOSES. 215 

"If it is the purpose of God that I shall gain an estate, it will 
come to me; and if not, I cannot obtain it; and, therefore, I 
will give myself no trouble on the subject." Nov does the ambi- 
tious man say : " If it is the purpose of God that I shall rise to 
honorable distinction, I certainly shall ; and if not I cannot ; and 
why should I exert myself any more?" In worldly things men 
know very well how to unite their faith in the purposes of God 
with vigorous and persevering efforts to secure the objects of 
their desire ; and why should they be less knowing, or less 
earnest, in securing the salvation of their souls ? 

7. Those abuse the purposes of God who draw from them 
arguments tending to diminish, if not destroy, a sense of sin. 
There is no end to the deceptions which men are willing to 
practise on themselves, and no shifts too absurd for them to 
make in excuse for their wickedness. The doctrine of God's 
purposes has sometimes been .held in such a way as to destroy 
the very existence of sin, and render it impossible that sin 
should exist. "The purposes of God," it is said, "fix every- 
thing, and everything takes place exactly according to them. 
One man answers the end of 'his existence as well as another. 
One man does the will of God as well as another. None have 
it in their power to break his decrees, .or act contrary to his 
eternal counsels." It is remarkable that the abettors of this 
philosophical mania are as quick to feel and to resent injuries 
as any persons in the world. But why, according to your 
principles, resent an injury? The man who defames and robs 
you, who fires your house, or murders your family, you say, 
answers the end he was made for, and does the will of God, as 
truly as the most virtuous citizen. He fulfils his destiny, and 
could not do otherwise. Why, then, be angry with him, or seek 
his hurt? If, in order to escape the restraints of religion and 
the punishment of sin, you are willing to be machines or blocks, 
then carry your system out, and be consistently so. And let 
not one block be angry with another block, because that other 
block has been jostled against it to its injury. 

8. Men abuse the purposes of God when they undertake to 
decide, a priori, what they must be, in, contradiction to the plain 
teachings of the Bible. The Scriptures inform us that a portion 



216 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

of our race, notwithstanding all that has been done for them, 
will persist in their sins, and perish forever. "These shall go 
away into everlasting punishment." "Who shall be punished 
with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and 
the glory of his power." But a metaphysical argument has 
been constructed, based on the purposes of God, which goes to 
contradict these declarations of his Word. "If God is infinitely 
wise and good, then his plan must secure the highest good to 
all men. And as this great plan will be infallibly executed, the 
highest good of all will certainly be attained. How, then, can 
any of the creatures of God be made forever miserable?" 

Were I disposed to criticise this specious argument, a variety 
of questions might be asked respecting it, and objections insur- 
mountable might be urged. But this is no part of my present 
plan. # We know that the argument is fallacious, and presents 
a perverted view of God's purposes, because it contradicts, first, 
the plain declarations of his Word, and, secondly, the experi- 
ence and observation of all mankind. By the mode of reason- 
ing here used, we might prove just as well that there is no sin 
or misery in this world, as that there will be none in the other 
world. Yet who would rely on his metaphysics, in opposition 
to his own experience and his senses, to prove that there is no 
sin or misery on the earth ? . 

I have now exhibited some of the more common perversions 
of the doctrine of God's purposes. It may be thought that a 
doctrine, so liable to abuse and perversion, ought not to be 
meddled with. If true, it ought not to be preached or publicly 
discussed. But why should men think to be wiser than God? 
If God has set this doctrine before us, in his works and in his 
word, then it is right for men to study it, and endeavor to 
understand it. It ought, indeed, to be handled wisely, and to 
be explained with care. But the perversions and abuses of it 
furnish no sufficient reason why it should be rejected or 
neglected. 

But this will more fully appear, as I proceed to touch, very 
briefly, on some of the important uses of the doctrine in ques- 
tion. This doctrine is of use, — 
•1. As it gives us the most exalted ideas of God. It repre- 



ABUSES AND USES OF THE DOCTRINE OF GOD'S PURPOSES. 217 

sents him, not only as existing before all beings, but as exalted 
to an infinite height above them all ; — as exercising a universal 
and uncontrollable sovereignty. It was in eternity that he 
formed his plan ; — a plan extending through all space and 
time, to all beings and worlds ; — a plati • needing no alteration 
or amendment ; which has been carried forward thus far with 
an unfaltering hand, and will be carried out to a complete and 
endless fulfilment. In view of a doctrine such as this, it will 
be seen that God can be under no apprehension from the wrath 
and malice of his enemies. "He that sitteth in the heavens 
shall laugh : the Lord shall have them in derision." He can 
never be disappointed, defeated, or surprised. He will bring 
light out of darkness, and good out of evil; will cause the 
wrath of man to contribute to his praise, and the remainder of 
wrath he will restrain. 

2. The purpose of God respecting the final salvation of his 
people is fitted deeply to humble them, and give them a strong 
sense of obligation to his distinguishing mercy. It teaches 
them that their salvation is not of themselves ; but that from 
beginning to end, from eternity to eternity, from the foundation 
to the top stone, it is all of sovereign grace. In view of a doc- 
trine such as this, the people of God are led to exclaim : " TTho 
hath made us to differ ! And what have we that we have hot 
received ! " At the same time, they are penetrated with a sense 
of obligation to him "who hath saved them, and called them 
with a holy calling, not according to their works, but according 
to his own purpose and grace, which was given them in Christ 
Jesus, before the world began." 

3. The eternal purposes of God furnish strong ground of 
sujjport, comfort, and confidence to his people, under trials. In 
the belief of this doctrine, they regard no afiliction as coming 
from the dust, or trouble as springing out of the ground. The 
ills they meet with, of whatever nature, are but parts of a 
boundless and perfect plan, — necessary links in that endless 
chain, which stretches from eternity to eternity, and is leading 
onward, through scenes of present mystery and darkness, to the 

.most glorious results. And, with such impressions, how can 
they repine? How can they but rejoice and be happy? 

28 



218 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

And the case is much the same in trials of a public nature ; 
in those relating to the kingdom of Christ. In view of these, 
the Christian feels, often, that he could have no support were it 
not for the universal and unchangeable purposes of God. But, 
resting on these, he is not dismayed in the midst of present 
calamities or in prospect of impending evils. For high above 
the black clouds which thicken around him and shut out the 
sun, he sees God upon the throne. A Being of infinite wisdom 
and goodness reigns, and nothing takes place but in accordance 
with his eternal councils. Confiding in him, — in the stability 
and perfection of his holy government, and in the assured ful- 
filment of all his purposes, the Christian has sources of conso- 
lation which no outward circumstances can interrupt or destroy. 
For though the earth be removed out of its place, and the 
mountains be carried into the midst of the sea, the foundations 
of his trust and peace are unshaken forever. 

4. The purposes of God, and more especially his revealed 
purposes, afford the greatest encouragement to his people to 
labor in Ms service. Sometimes these purposes are made the 
occasion of inducing sloth ; but this, as I have before said, is a 
wicked perversion of them, — a turning of them aside from 
their legitimate design and influence. They are calculated to 
increase effort, and not discourage it ; to quicken the children 
of God in his service, and not lead them to fo'd their hands in 
sloth. When Daniel understood that the set time had come for 
his captive people to be restored, he " set his face the more 
earnestly unto the Lord, to seek by prayer and supplication, 
with fasting, and sackcloth and ashes." So when the disciples, 
before the Pentecost, were waiting the fulfilment of their Lord's 
prediction as to the descent of the Holy Ghost, they " continued 
daily, with one accord, in prayer and in supplication." There 
is no more efficient motive to exertion in any great and difficult 
undertaking, than the assurance of success. But the revealed 
purposes of God assure his people of the entire ultimate success 
of all their labors for the promotion of his cause and kingdom. 
Not a prayer can be offered, in behalf of his holy kingdom, 
which shall not be heard. Not a hand can be lifted, or an effort 



ABUSES AND USES OF THE DOCTRINE OF GOD'S PURPOSES. 219 

made to promote its interests, which shall not tend to hasten its 
predicted triumphs. 

5. The purposes of God are of use to try the feelings of men, 
test their characters, and make them known to themselves. There 
is not a doctrine of the Bible more eminently calculated to do 
all this than the one which has been considered in these Lec- 
tures. The true friends of God love to see him exalted ; and 
for this reason they love the doctrines of his supremacy,, his 
sovereignty, and of his eternal and unchangeable purposes. 
They love to contemplate him as "working all things after the 
counsel of his own will," and overruling all things — not 
excepting the wrath and malice of his enemies — for his own 
brighter glory, and for their deeper disgrace and ruin. 

But this view of God the* hearts of those who are not recon- 
ciled to him cannot bear. They invariably rise up against it, 
and pour forth their feelings in murmurs and complaints. 
"Why doth he yet find fault; for who hath resisted his will?" 
"I know thee, that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou 
hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strewed." 

6. Still another use of the doctrine under consideration is, to 
abase the pride and bring down the high thoughts and looks of 
the wicked. This it does by showing them that their designs 
against God and against the people of God, however bold and 
daring they may be, can never prosper. They are sure to be 
defeated and turned against themselves. They cannot cross the 
great plan of God's providence. They cannot cause one of his 
purposes to fail. On the contrary, their efforts against him 
(though they mean not so, neither do their hearts think so) can 
only accomplish what " his hand and counsel before determined 
should be done." 

By their wickedness, sinners may destroy themselves ; but 
they can do nothing, ultimately, against God or his kingdom. 
His name will be glorious, though they be not gathered ; and 
the mansions above will all be filled, though they reject the 
proffered grace, and have no portion there. 

It is of the utmost importance that the doctrine of divine 
purposes be used and applied in a proper manner. The objec- 
tions and prejudices against the doctrine have arisen, in no 



220 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

small degree, from its perversions and abuses. That there are 
difficulties attending this great subject, — that questions may be 
raised respecting it which, with our present means of knowledge, 
it may be difficult to answer, — need not be denied. Still, it is 
a doctrine of God's revealed Word, and we have no right to use 
it as a means of puzzling and perplexing either ourselves or 
our fellow-men. We have no right to misstate, pervert, and 
abuse it, in any of the ways which have been pointed out. Let 
the purposes of God be introduced whenever we have occasion 
to exalt his glorious character, or to humble and affect the 
hearts of his people, or to give them support and confidence 
under trials, and encourage them to pray and labor in his ser- 
vice ; or when we wish to test the character and try the feelings 
of the human heart, or to check the pride and silence the boast- 
ings of the wicked ; — let the doctrine before us be introduced 
in such connections, and for such purposes, as it always is by 
the inspired writers ; and its influence will be good, — all good; 
and its truth and importance will be universally acknowledged. 
True Christians, the world over, will receive it, love it, cling 
to it, and be sanctified by it. They will rejoice in it as a 
ground of hope, of confidence, of comfort, which can never be 
taken from them. 



CKEATION-^-THE ANGELS. 221 



LECTURE XIX. 

CREATION— THE ANGELS. 

In several Lectures, we have been considering the doctrine of 
God's universal and eternal purposes, — the great plan which 
was before him in eternity, and in accordance with which all 
events are transpiring, and will transpire, throughout the uni- 
verse. From this we naturally proceed to the- works of God, 
by which his purposes are successively fulfilled and revealed. 
We commence with the first of all his works, creation. 

By creation, we mean something more than the making of one 
thing from another. We can make one thing from another. 
With the appropriate materials, we can make many things. 
And by most of the ancient heathen philosophers creation was 
supposed to be nothing more, in kind, than this. Assuming the 
axiom, Ex nihilo nihil fit, they maintained the existence of two 
eternal, independent principles, God, and elemental, chaotic 
matter; and taught that, out of these chaotic elements, God 
made the world. But it is evident that a world thus made 
would not be a proper creation. It would rather be & formation 
or fabrication. 

Again ; by creation we do not mean the emanation of existing 
things from the very substance of God. This doctrine was held 
by some of the ancients, and it has its advocates in modern 
times. But it has no foundation either in reason or Scripture. 
If all things are from the substance of God, then they are inde- 
pendent and indestructible like God ; which we have no reason 
to suppose is true. They are also parts of God ; and this 
involves the absurdity that the infinite God is made up of parts. . 
It involves, also, the mutability, the changeableness of God ; for 
certainly there are continual changes going on in the world 



222 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

around us ; and if the world and all it contains are of the very 
substance of God, then there are continual changes in his 
substance. Our Saviour also tells us that " God is a spirit " 
(John iv. 24). But this world is not spirit. How, then, can 
it be from the very substance of God? 

But' we need not pursue this heathenish, pantheistic, infidel 
notion any further. As I said, it has no foundation in reason, 
or Scripture, and should not be named where the Bible is 
known. 

By creation, we understand the making of all created things 
from nothing. God made them all, not out of himself, nor from 
eternal, elemental matter, but from nothing. He brought them 
into being. He gave them existence when, before, they had none. 
This is what we understand by the work of creation ; and this 
is the view given of it in the Scriptures. The Hebrew word, 
translated create, properly (though perhaps not invariably) 
means as much as this. That it signifies this in the first chapters 
of Genesis is evident from a distinction made by Moses himself. 
" God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in 
it he had rested from all his work which he had created and 
made"; — importing that he first created the materials, and 
afterward, made or fashioned them into the existing world. 
This distinction appears, also, in the narrative of Moses. After 
the original creation, which could have extended only to the 
materials, we are told that they were " without form and void," 
and required to be digested, arranged, made over, into a suitable 
residence for man. 

The same view is presented us in the 90th Psalm, which is 
said to have been written by Moses. The substance of the 
created world is here set forth, not as coeval, coeternal with 
God, but as subsequent to him, by everlasting ages, and as the 
worlc of his hands. " Before the mountains were brought forth, 
or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from 
everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." 

This view of creation was held by the Jews in all periods of 
their history. Thus it is said in the Maccabees : " Look upon 
the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider 
that God made them of things that were not;" — in other 



CKEATIOX THE ANGELS. 223 

words, made them from nothing (2 Maec. vii. 28). And 
Philo says : " The things which existed not God called into 
being." 

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Paul gives us the same view 
of creation : " Through faith we understand that the worlds were 
framed by the word of God ; so that the things which are seen 
were not made of things which do appear; " — as much as to say 
that they were made from nothing (Heb. xi. 3). 

In the first verse of the Bible it is said that " God created the 
heavens and the earth." "The heavens" — what are we to 
understand by these? The Hebrews speak of three heavens; 
viz., the visible heavens, or the firmament above us ; the starry 
heavens, — the region of the planets and stars ; and the celestial 
heavens, where are the glorified saints and angels, and where is 
the throne of God himself. Now the declaration of Moses is, 
that God created all these. He created the glorious expanse 
above us. He created all the stars of light. He created "the 
third heavens," the celestial heavens, to be his own peculiar 
abode, and the dwelling-place of angels and glorified spirits 
forever. 

The original inhabitants of heaven— the first and oldest of 
God's intelligent creatures of which we have any knowledge — 
are the angels. Of the actual existence of angels, we have the 
most abundant proof. They often appeared to men in ancient 
times, conversed with them, and brought them messages from 
God. Their history is intimately connected with that of our 
Saviour, and of most of the worthies mentioned in the Scrip- 
tures. The substance of what we are permitted to know 
respecting the angels will be exhibited under the following 
particulars : — 

1. They are spirits. "Who maketh his angels spirits." "Are 
they not all ministering spirits, etc." (Heb. i. 7, 14). They 
have not gross bodies like our own, and (so far as appears) 
never had any. Some have thought them invested with ethe- 
real, spiritual bodies, like those of the saints after the resur- 
rection. Whether this be so, or not, we pretend not to say. 
But if it be not so ; if the angels are pure spirits ; still we are 
to conceive of them as real, substantial beings. There is a 



224 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

spiritual substance as well as a material substance. God is a 
spirit ; yet is not he a substantial Being ? Spirit has more 
power over matter than matter has over spirit ; which proves 
that the former cannot be less a substance than the latter. 

Spirit is capable of being located ; as we see in the case of 
our own spirits, which are at present united to our bodies, and 
confined to the earth. The home of angelic spirits is heaven. 
Still, they are not confined there. They ascend and descend on 
the ladder which reaches from earth to heaven (Gen. xxviii. 
12). And not only so, they take time in passing from one 
world to the other. Thus, at the close of Daniel's prayer for 
the restoration of his people, the angel Gabriel, " being caused 
to fly swiftly ," came to him and said ; "At the beginning of thy 
supplication, the commandment came forth, and I am come to 
show thee; for thou art greatly beloved " (Dan. ix. 23). The 
language here imports that, during the whole time of Daniel's 
supplications, the angel was on his way. We have an instance 
of the same purport in the following chapter. Daniel had been 
mourning and fasting " three full weeks*," or twenty-one days, 
when an angel came to him and said: "Fear not, Daniel; for 
from th.Q first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, 
and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, 
and I am come for thy words. But the prince of the kingdom 
of Persia withstood me one-and-twenty days," — the whole time 
of Daniel's fast; — but, lo, Michael," another angel, "came to 
help me/ and I remained there with the kings of Persia. But 
now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy 
people in the latter days" (Dan. x. 12-14). 

If some things in this passage are obscure, others are plain. 
It is plain that this mighty angel was sent forth at the com- 
mencement of Daniel's fast, and in answer to his prayer; but at 
the court of the king of Persia he was detained twenty-one days. 
Then Michael, another angel, came to his help, when he was 
soon released, and appeared to instruct and comfort Daniel. 
These circumstances seem to have been detailed by the angel, 
as an apology for his delay. The whole goes to show that 
angels, whether they are pure spirits or not, are real, substan- 
tial beings; that they exist, in place; that they literally pass 



CREATION — THE ANGELS. 225 

from one place to another ; and that some little time is consumed 
in passing. I now remark, — 

2. That the angels are of different, orders. Some are higher 
in capacity and power, in dignity, authority, and glory, than 
others. There are angels and archangels, cherubim and sera- 
phim. There are "thrones and dominions, principalities and 
powers v (Col. i. 16). 

3. The angels were created before the human species, and 
probably before the creation of the world. That they are older 
than man is certain from the fact that one of them — originally 
an angel of light, but then a demon of darkness — was con- 
cerned in drawing our first parents into 'sin. That they existed 
before the creation of the world is clearly intimated in what 
God said to Job : " Where wast thou when I laid the founda- 
tions of the earth, — when the morning stars sang together, and 
all the sons of God shouted for joy •?" (Job xxxviii. 7). These 
stars of the morning, these sons of God, could have been no 
other than the holy angels. 

4. The angels are not only a different order of beings from 
men, but a higher order. They are endowed with greater 
capacities, and have more knowledge, wisdom, power, holiness, 
dignity, and glory. Man is said expressly to have been made 
" a little lower than the angels " (Ps. viii. 5). Paul also repre- 
sents the nature of angels as distinct from, and superior to, the 
nature of the seed of Abraham (Heb. ii. 16). 

The angels are called in Scripture, "mighty angels," they are 
also said to "excel in strength." One angel destroyed more 
than a hundred and eighty thousand men, in a single night, in 
the camp of the Assyrians (2 Kings xix. 35). 

The angels excel also in wisdom and knowledge. They were 
created originally with vast intellectual capacities and powers, 
and, through myriads of ages, they have been in a situation the 
most favorable to mental growth and improvement. They have 
been in the best school in the universe, — a place where truth 
reigns triumphant, where knowledge is universally sought and 
diffused, where the deep things of God are gradually unfolded. 
Their expanding powers know no weariness or decay, while 
they drink in divine wisdom from the fountain-head, ever occu- 

29 



226 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

pied in studying the works of God and beholding his glory. It 
is because of their vast attainments in wisdom and knowledge, 
that the angels are represented in Scripture as " full of eyes " 
within and without (Ezek. x. 12). To be " wise according to 
the wisdom of an angel of God " was regarded by the Hebrews 
as the highest created wisdom (2 Sam. xiv. 17). 

The angels are superior to the human race, not only in knowl- 
edge, but in holiness. Hence they are called in Scripture the 
holy angels, and the elect angels. They were originally formed 
in the moral image of God, and they have retained that image 
by constant and persevering obedience to the divine commands. 
We have seen what great advances the angels have made in 
knowledge. Unquestionably, they have made as great advances 
in holiness ; so that they as far excel all other created beings in 
their moral, as in their intellectual attainments. 

The angels are also beings of surpassing dignity and glory. 
This is evident from what has been already said. Possessing 
such high attainments as have been ascribed to them in knowl- 
edge, in wisdom, in holiness, and power, they must be pre-emi- 
nently glorious 'beings. And so they are ever represented in 
the Scriptures. They are called "thrones, dominions, princi- 
palities, and powers"; — names importing the highest dignity 
and authority. In their manifold appearances, also, they have 
descended, usually, in power and great glory. Witness the 
angel which descended at the resurrection of Christ. "His 
countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow : 
and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead 
men." Witness also the representations given of the holy angels, 
in the visions of Patmos. " I saw a mighty angel come down 
from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and a rainbow was upon 
his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as 
pillars of fire" (Rev. x. 1). "I saw another angel come down 
from heaven, having great power, and the earth was lightened 
with his glory" (Rev. xviii. 1). 

It must be kept in mind, however, whatever attributes are 
ascribed to angels, — that they are still finite and dependent 
beings. They are creatures, as well as we, and make no ap- 
proaches to "the high and lofty One who inhabiteth eternity." 



CREATION — THE ANGELS. 227 

They are not self-existent, omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipo- 
tent, or in possession of any of the essential attributes of the 
Supreme Being. 

5. The angels were once on probation. They had a trial. It 
seems to have been a part of God's original plan respecting his 
intelligent creatures, to try them for a time, before fixing them 
in their eternal state. Thus, our first parents, almost as soon 
as created, were placed on trial ; and human beings in this world 
now are having their probation. As to the particular injunctions 
laid upon the angels, and the adverse influences brought to bear 
upon them, by means of which they were tried, we are not in- 
formed. There have been many conjectures on the subject, but 
nothing is certainly known. The great object of their proba- 
tion, undoubtedly, was to test their obedience ; — to see whether, 
under circumstances of trial, they would persevere in holiness, 
and prove themselves worthy of the everlasting favor and bless- 
ing of God. 

6. While the angels were on probation, a portion of them fell 
into sin. Of this original defection — the introduction of sin 
and misery into the universe — we are particularly informed in 
the Scriptures. Thus Jude says : "And the angels which kept 
not their first estate, but left their own .habitation, he hath re- 
served in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment 
of the great day " (v. 6) . Also Peter tells us, " God spared not 
the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered 
them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment" 
(2 Pet. ii. 4). Our Saviour also speaks of the same event. 
" He," the devil, " was a murderer from the beginning, and abode 
not in the truth " (John viii. 44) . Among the angels who fell at 
this time, some were of the highest orders. One in particular, 
who, after his fall, was called the Devil and Satan, seems to have 
been a chief among the angels of light. He was the leader in 
this primitive rebellion, and great multitudes (how many we 
know not) were drawn by him, and after him, into sin. 

. 7. With the fall of the angels their probation, in all proba- 
bility, ceased. Those of them who remained steadfast entered 
at once upon a state of confirmed holiness and bliss, where they 
should be no more exposed to temptation and sin ; while, upon 



228 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

those who fell the penalty of the violated law was immediately 
executed. They were cast out of heaven and thrust down to 
hell, where they are reserved in everlasting chains under dark- 
ness unto the judgment of the great day. These everlasting 
chains are not literal chains, with which the fallen angels are 
bound and confined ; for it seems they are not confined. They 
still roam the earth. They "go about like roaring lions, seek- 
ing whom they may devour." But the devils are bound in chains 
of darkness. In other words, they are confirmed in a state of 
darkness and sin. All good influences are withdrawn from them, 
and they are left under the bondage of corruption forever. 

Henceforward, then, we have two classes of angels, the obedi- 
ent and the sinful, the holy and the fallen. It remains that we 
speak of the employments of each. 

8. The employment of holy angels, since the fall and ruin of 
their rebel brethren, has been, in some respects, tKe same as 
before. They continue to study the works of God, — the reve- 
lations of his truth and will. They are growing continually in 
a knowledge of his character, with brighter visions of his glory. 
A new interest was given to these studies, after the introduction 
of sin into the universe ; and more especially after the unfolding 
of the great work of redemption. Into this, we are told, "the 
angels desire to look" ; since here, the very heart of the Deity 
is opened, and they behold manifestations of the love of God, — 
of his kindness and compassion, of his long-suffering grace and 
pardoning mercy, of which before they had no conception. I can 
conceive that Gabriel and all the angelic choirs see a hundred 
times more of the glory of God, and love, enjoy, and praise him 
a hundred times better than they could ever have done, but for 
the intervention of redeeming mercy. 

But though the employments of angels have been in some re- 
spects the same since the lapse of their brethren that they were 
before, in other respects there has been a difference. They have 
been more appropriately called " watchers " since that event. 

There is a foe abroad, vigilant and powerful, against whose 
mischievous wiles and machinations they are expected to be ever 
on their guard. Also, since the creation and fall of man, and 
the revelation of God's mercy toward him, holy angels have had 



CREATION THE ANGELS. 229 

many new objects of regard and interest. The angels of God 
"encamp round about them that fear him, and deliver them." 
"Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to 
them who shall be heirs of salvation ? " 

The angels were employed to publish God's law to his ancient 
people at Sinai. Hence the law is described as the word " spoken 
by angels " (Heb. ii. 2) ; as having been given " by the disposi- 
tion of angels" (Acts, vii. 53) ; and as having been "ordained 
by angels, in the hands of a Mediator" (Gal. iv. 19). 

But besides being concerned in this great public revelation of 
God's will, angels have been frequently employed in bearing 
messages of mercy to particular individuals, both before and 
since the coming of Christ. Witness, their messages to Abra- 
ham, to Lot, to Joshua, to Gideon, to Manoah and his wife, to 
Elijah and Elisha, to Zechariah the father of John the Baptist, 
to the Virgin Mary and her husband, to Cornelius and Peter and 
Paul, and the beloved disciple on the Isle of Patmos. Indeed, 
we find this ministry of angels to the heirs of salvation spoken 
of throughout the Bible, from beginning to end. 

A still more special employment of the angels was to minister 
to our Lord Jesus Christ, — to serve and honor him during his 
abode on earth. They heralded his entrance into the world with 
songs of praise : " Glory to God in the highest and on earth 
peace, good-will to men." After his temptation in the wilder- 
ness, " angels came and ministered unto him." They strength- 
ened him in the garden of Gethsemane ; and more than twelve 
legions of angels stood waiting to rescue him from the hands of 
his murderers, if he had only asked for them. They watched 
over his lifeless body while it lay in the tomb ; they rolled away 
the stone when he left the sepulchre ; and when he was taken 
up into heaven they were visibly present, to assure the gazing 
disciples that their Lord would come again, " in like manner as 
they had seen him go into heaven." 

Holy angels are not only messengers of mercy to God's suf- 
fering people, they are the executioners of his wrath against the 
wicked. Thus the angels* said to Lot, in Sodom : "We will 
destroy this place, because the cry of it waxeth great before the 
Lord, and he hath sent us to destroy it " (Gen. xix. 13). 



230 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

It was an angel that executed the divine displeasure against 
David and his kingdom, when he had sinned in numbering the 
people (2 Sam. xxiv. 16). In answer to the prayer of Heze- 
kiah, "the angel of the Lord went out and smote, in the camp 
of the Assyrians, an hundred fourscore and five thousand men" 
(2 r l£ings xix. 35). When Herod arrogated to himself divine 
honors, " immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because 
he gave not God the glory" (Acts xii. 23). 

9. As to the employments of fallen angels or devils, the Scrip- 
tures leave us no room for doubt. For the trial of our race, 
they are permitted to roam the earth, and " to walk up and down 
in it." They have access to the minds of men, and exert all 
their skill and power to draw them into sin. They tempted our 
first parents to eat the forbidden fruit. They stripped Job of 
everything but his life, hoping thereby to provoke him to curse 
God and die. Satan tempted David to number Israel ; he 
tempted our blessed Saviour in the wilderness ; he put it into 
the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray him ; and filled the heart 
of Ananias and Sapphira to lie to the Holy Ghost. He is said 
" to work in the children of disobedience," and " to blind the 
minds of them that believe not." In the first age of Christianity 
he exerted a terrible influence over the physical as well as moral 
condition of his victims, deranging their faculties and driving 
them to madness. In times yet future, this malicious spirit is 
to " go forth to deceive the nations which are in the four quar- 
ters of the earth, and gather them together to the battle " of the 
great God (Rev. xx. 8). Hence the frequent admonitions and 
warnings which we find in the Bible, to be on our guard against 
his snares and wiles. "Resist the devil, and he will flee from 
you." "Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able 
to stand against the wiles of the devil." " Be sober, be vigilant ; 
for your adversary, the devil, goeth about like a roaring lion, 
seeking whom he may devour." 

Notwithstanding the abundant evidence from Scripture in 
proof of the doctrine of fallen spirits, there are many at this day 
who deny their existence altogether. Whole bodies of men, 
calling themselves Christians, will not believe that there are any 
such beings. The language of Scripture on the subject is all 



CREATION — THE ANGELS. 231 

figurative. The devil *of the Bible is only " the personified prin- 
ciple of evil." Of those who reason in this way, I would inquire, 
first of all : What is there at all incredible in the Scripture 
account of fallen angels, as above detailed, taking this account 
literally ? Is it incredible that God should create spiritual beings, 
older, and of a higher nature than ourselves ? And as they were 
not made to dwell in a material world like this, is it incredible 
that he should have failed to invest them in gross bodies of flesh 
and blood like our own ? He has adapted us to the sphere in 
which we are at present placed ; and why should he not adapt 
them for that higher sphere for which they were originally des- 
tined? Is it incredible that God should place these angelic 
beings for a time upon trial, that the strength of their moral 
principles might be tested and proved ? Man was put upon trial 
when he was created ; and why should not the angels have been 
treated in the same way? Again, is it incredible that, during 
their probation, a portion of these angels should fall into sin? 
It is strange, we know, that any intelligent creature should sin 
against God ; and especially that holy beings should be led to 
do this, But our first parents sinned when they were holy ; and 
why may not holy angels have done the same ? In every view 
we can take of the subject, I can see nothing incredible in the 
fall and ruin of a portion of the angels, more than in the fall 
of man. 

The Scripture testimony to the existence of fallen spirits, we 
have seen, is most explicit and abundant. It is found in all 
parts of the Bible. It is found, not merely in poetic description, 
but in sober narrative and prose. It is so inwrought into the 
sacred history that it can never be removed or explained away, 
without endangering the credit of the whole. Yea, more than 
this, it is so inwrought, into the personal history of Christ, that 
it cannot be discredited without implicating his integrity and 
truth. Who tempted our Saviour in the wilderness, if there is 
no devil ? With his pure nature, he could have had no tempta- 
tions from within ; and who could have assailed him from with- 
out but this arch enemy of all righteousness ? What beings did 
Christ cast out of the Gadarene demoniac, and, at their request, 
send into the herd of swine, if there are no devils? And what 



232 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

are we J,o make of the sentence which Christ assures us he will 
pass upon the wicked, at the judgment day, — "Depart ye 
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his 
angels ," if there are no such beings as fallen angels ? 

The grand argument, we have seen, for the existence of fallen 
spirits, is from the Bible. And yet this is not the only argu- 
ment. The facts of God's providence, and of our own experi- 
ence", indicate the same thing. Why are strange, unwelcome, 
seducing thoughts so frequently obtruded upon us, — not in the 
orderly train of our thoughts, but quite out of it, — obtruded 
upon us, it may be, in our devotions, — if there is no devil? 
Why, but upon the same supposition, do persons often fall 
when they least expected it, and plunge into the perpetration 
of foul and ruinous deeds, from which they supposed they were 
forever delivered ? And how are we to account for those subtle 
and far-reaching plans of wickedness, which history unfolds to 
us, — plans extending often through ages and centuries, and 
which, of course, no one man, or generation of men, could 
have concerted, — but upon the supposition of just such an 
agency as that which the Scriptures ascribe to the devil and his 
angels ? 

The devil is not unwilling that men should deny his exist- 
ence. If they will serve him well, they may deny him and rail 
at him as much as they please. He understands the tendency 
of all such practices. It is but to throw men off their guard, 
render them bold and reckless in sin, and thus prepare them 
the more easily to become his prey. 

A denial of the doctrine of fallen spirits tends directly to 
infidelity. In order to make it, and carry it out, persons must 
accustom themselves to such a mode of treating the Bible, that 
they can no longer have any great respect for it. It has ceased 
to be to them a standard of truth. And besides, if the doctrine 
of fallen spirits can be taken out of the Bible, the doctrine of a 
personal God can be as well. If Satan is but the personified 
principle of evil, God is but a personification of the powers, 
processes, and laws of nature'. There is no other God to be 
feared or served. So men in great numbers have said, and are 
saying now ; and thus they run down, from one stage of infi- 



CREATION THE ANGELS. 233 

delity to another, till they land in a dreamy Pantheism, which 
is no better, in its moral influence, than Atheism itself. 

Let us beware, my young brethren, of the rock on which so 
many have made utter shipwreck of the faith. Let us receive 
the whole doctrine of angels, as God has revealed it, and draw 
from it all that instruction and profit which it is fitted to afford 
us. Let us rejoice and be thankful, in view of the ministry of 
holy angels, — a ministry which was not confined to the ancient 
believers, but belongs equally to us. And never shall we know, 
till it is revealed in eternity, how much we are indebted to the 
kind and watchful interpositions of these blessed angels. At 
the same time, let us "be sober and vigilant," in view of our 
exposedness to the machinations of those evil spirits who " go 
about like roaring lions, seeking whom they may devour." 
Who would lay off his armor, and go to sleep, in presence of 
such an enemy ; — an enemy who sees us when we cannot see 
him: who knows all our weak 'sides and exposed points; and 
who will be sure to assail us how and when and where he can 
do it with the most effect? 

10. I have but another remark to make in regard to the 
angels : They shall participate with us in the scenes and awards 
of the final judgment. We are expressly informed that this will 
be the case in respect to fallen angels. They are "reserved in 
everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the 
great day" (Jude 5, 6). And there is reason to believe that 
the same is true concerning the holy angels. They are to be 
the assistants and servants of Christ in preparing for the judg- 
ment. "The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked 
fipm among the just" (Matt. xiii. 49). And, having partici- ' 
pated so largely in the scenes and events of our probation, they 
will stand and be judged with us in the final day. Indeed, it 
is not easy to see how our own judgment can proceed on any 
other supposition. " Know ye not that the saints shall judge 
the world? Know ye not that we shall judge angels ?" (1 Cor. 
vi. 2, 3). 

The subject which has been before us gives us a startling 
view of the ultimate destination of the human race. The angels 
are our superiors now ; but the time is coming, our Lord assures 

30 



234 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

us, when, if we are the children of God, we shall be their 
equals (Luke xx. 36). We shall be as tall, as wise, as holy, 
and as blessed as they. O glorious assurance of the Saviour ! 
Blessed prospect to be held out to the toiling, suffering people 
of God ! 

But, to this bright hope there is a terrible counterpart. ■ If 
the children of God shall one day be equal to the holy angels, 
the time is coming when reprobate men will be like the demons ; 
— as malicious, as hateful, as miserable as they. Which, my 
beloved brethren, shall we be like? Where, in the long cycles 
of eternity, shall our immortal souls be found ? 



CREATION OF THIS WORLD. 235 



LECTUEE XX. 

CREATION OF THIS WORLD. 

In my last Lecture, I treated of creation in the general ; 
showed in what it consists ; and spoke particularly of the' angels, 
as the oldest of God's intelligent creatures of which we have 
any knowledge. In what follows, I shall speak of the creation 
of this world and its inhabitants. 

When was this world created? If created at all, it must be a 
creature of time. There was a time when it was not, — a time 
when its existence commenced. When was this time? 

In the first Terse in the Bible it is said : " In the beginning, 
God created the heavens and the earth." This announces, we 
think, the original creation, — the* creation of the world in its 
chaotic, elemental- state.. God now created — brought into being 
— the rudiments, the elements of all material things. This 
great event took place in time ; but we have no data by which 
to determine the time. It must have been at a period vastly 
remote. It took place in the very beginning of God's works ; 
but, when this beginning was, no tongue can tell. 

Some have supposed that the original creation of which we 
speak took place about six thousand years ago, — at the time 
when this earth was first fitted up for the residence of man. 
But this, I am satisfied, is a mistake. The narrative of Moses 
does not confine us to such an interpretation, and the ascertained 
facts of geological science contradict it. 

The first verse of the Bible I regard as an independent, a most 
important (and considering the circumstances under which it 
was uttered) a most wonderful declaration, announcing that at 
some time — at some remote period in the ages of eternity — 
God did create the heavens and the earth. The remaining verses 



236 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

of the chapter relate to a very different subject, — the fitting up 
of the earth for the residence of man ; — an event which took 
place, according to our Hebrew chronology, about six thousand 
years ago. 

As I have before remarked, we have no information in Scrip- 
ture as to the time of the original creation , or as to the appear- 
ance or consistence of the earth at that period. Nor have we 
the slightest information as to the changes and revolutions of 
the world, or as to the forms of animal and vegetable life which 
it bore upon its surface during the remoter ages of its history. 
The geologist has space enough here for all his discoveries. He 
has scope enough for any conclusions to which he may reason- 
ably come, without the remotest danger of trenching on the 
annunciations of revealed truth. 

That a vastly long period intervened between the proper 
creation of the world, spoken of in the first verse in the Bible, 
and the commencement of the six days' work recorded in the 
following verses, there can be, as it seems to me, no reasonable 
doubt. It was during this period that the earth assumed a solid 
form. Its heated masses were cooled and conglomerated. The 
primary rocks were crystallized . The transition, the secondary, 
and the deeper portion of the tertiary recks were deposited and 
petrified. The lower forms of animal and vegetable existence 
appeared and perished. Multitudes*of marine and amphibious 
animals — some of them of huge and terrific forms — lived and 
died, and their remains became imbedded in the solid rocks. 
Yast quantities of vegetable matter also accumulated on the 
earth, and were treasured up beneath its surface, in the form of 
coal, for the future use and benefit of man. 

It is evident that the earth, during this long period, under- 
went frequent and terrible revolutions. Its internal fires were 
raging in their prison-house, and often bursting through the 
crust which confined them. The mountains were upheaved 
from their deeper than ocean beds ; trap-dikes were formed ; 
and the stratified rocks were tilted from their original horizontal 
positions in every direction. 

It was subsequent to one of these terrible revolutions which 
had torn the earth to its very centre, merged the greater part 



CREATION OF THIS WORLD. 237 

of it beneath the ocean, and destroyed almost every trace of 
animal and vegetable existence, that mention is made of it in 
the second verse of the Bible. The earth was then mi inn 
"formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the 
deep." 

The earth was dark at this period, not because there was no 
sun, but because caliginous gases and vapors — like those in one 
of the plagues of Egypt — had utterly obscured the light of the 
sun, and shut it out from the desolate world. 

But God had not abandoned the work of his own hands. 
He had nobler purposes to answer by this seemingly ruined 
world, than any which had hitherto been accomplished. It was 
no longer to be the abode of saurians and mastodons, and other 
huge and terrific monsters, but was to be fitted up and adorned 
for a new and nobler race of beings. Accordingly, the Spirit 
of God began to move upon the turbid waters, and order and 
quietness were gradually restored. 

"And God said, Let there be light; and there was light." 
The dense clouds and vapors which had enveloped the earth, 
and shut out entirely the light of heaven, were so far dissipated 
that it was easy to distinguish between day and-night. 
• On the second day, " God said, Let there be a firmament in 
the midst of the waters and let it divide the waters from the 
waters. And God called the firmament heaven." The work 
here denoted was the elevation of the clouds and the separation 
of the aerial waters, by a visible firmament, — the seeming ex- 
panse of heaven, — from those which rested on the earth. 

" And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered 
together unto one place and let the dry land appear ; and it was 
so. And God called the dry land earth ; and the gathering to- 
gether of the Waters called he seas. And God saw that it was 
good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass ; the herb 
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind ; and 
it was so. And the evening and the morning were the third 
day." In the course of this day vast portions of the earth's 
surface were elevated ; others were depressed. Continents and 
islands were raised ; and seas and oceans were made to know 
their bounds. As soon as the dry land appeared it began to be 



238 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

clothed with vegetation. The forming hand of the Creator cov- 
ered it — by miracle of course — with new species of trees and 
vegetables, in place of such as had been destroyed. 

" And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven 
to divide the day from the night. And God made two great 
lights ; the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to 
rule the night. He made the stars also. And the evening: and 
the morning were the fourth clay." The language here used 
does not import that the sun, moon, and stars were -now first 
created, but only that they were first made to shine out upon the 
renovated earth. They now became visible lights to the world. 
The clouds and vapors had been so far dissipated on the first 
day that it was easy to distinguish between day and night ; but 
now they were entirely dissipated, and the lights of heaven 
shone down upon the earth "in full-orbed splendor." 

The representation, throughout this chapter, it will be per- 
ceived, is. phenomenal, and not philosophical. It accords not 
with philosophical accuracy, but rather with what would have 
been the appearance of things, had there been any spectator on 
the earth at the time to observe them. Thus, when it is said 
that God -made 'a, firmament, we are not to understand that the 
seeming canopy above us is a literal thing or substance, but only 
that such is the appearance to a spectator on the earth. And 
when it is said that God made two great lights, and set them in 
the firmament, we are not to suppose that the sun and moon 
were now first created, and set up and fastened in the blue ex- 
panse, but that such would have been the appearance to man 
had he been in existence on the fourth day, when the sun and 
moon commenced their shining. 

On the fifth day God peopled the waters with fishes, and the 
air with birds and flying fowls. 

On the sixth day he brought forth the beasts of the earth, the 
cattle, and every tiling that creepeth, after its kind. He also 
created man in his own image. " Male and female created he 
them ; and God blessed them," and gave them dominion over 
air the creatures that he had made. 

On the seventh day God ended his work which he had made ; 
— the great work of renewing a desolate, chaotic world, pre- 



CREATION OF THIS WORLD. 239 

paring it for the residence of man, and placing man and the 
other races of creatures upon it. "And God blessed the seventh 
day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all 
his work which he had created and made." We have here the 
institution of the weekly Sabbath. It commenced with the re- 
newal of the earth and the creation of its intelligent inhabitants, 
and is to continue till time shall be no more. 

I have given this running commentary on the first chapter of 
Genesis, the better to illustrate the distinction between the 
original creation, spoken of in the first verse, and the six days' 
work described in the remainder of the chapter. The time of 
the original creation was vastly remote, beyond all human con- 
ception or calculation. The six days' work took place, in all 
probability, about six thousand years ago. Between these two 
great epochs there was a wide space, — wide enough to account 
for all the phenomena that geologists have ever discovered or 
ever will. 

It will be seen that, in harmonizing the revelations of Scrip- 
ture with the facts of science, I have not taken the ground (with 
some of my brethren) that the days spoken of in the first chap- 
ter of Genesis are not literal days, but long, indefinite periods 
of time. This I could not do, for several reasons. In the first 
place, we have in this chapter not only the word day (which, I 
admit, is sometimes used to denote a long period) , but a de- 
scription of each successive day. The evening and the morning 
were the first day, and the second day, and so of all the rest ; 
thus showing- that each day was limited to an evening and a 
morning, or to a single diurnal revolution of the earth. Then 
we have the seventh day, — a season of holy, blessed rest. Was 
this, also, an indefinitely long period? If so, what becomes of 
the primeval institution of the weekly Sabbath ; and of the 
division of time into weeks of seven clays, which we know pre- 
vailed as early as the deluge, and probably from the creation? 
(See Gen. viii. 10-12.) And what shall we say of the fourth 
commandment ; and more especially of the reason assigned for 
its observance? "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, 
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day ; 
wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it " 



240 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

(Ex. xx. 11). There is here manifest reference to the institu- 
tion of the Sabbath on the clay following the creation, and a 
solemn injunction that we are to labor six days and rest the 
seventh, in commemoration of that great event. Does not this 
prove that the six days of the creation and the seventh of rest 
were each and all of them no more than literal days? 

In other respects, too, the narrative in Genesis seems not to 
accord well with the idea that the clays there spoken of were 
long cycles of years. On this supposition, the first day w T as 
naught but a vast period of mere twilight, or of alternate twi- 
light and total darkness. And in the next long period, naught 
was accomplished but the elevation of the clouds and the pre- 
sentation of an apparent firmament in the sky. Through the 
whole of the fifth cycle, however long it may have been, God 
w T as. occupied with nothing but making fishes and fowls ; and, 
during the isixth, with creating men, and beasts, and creeping 
things. 

But my principal difficulty,, on the supposition before us, is 
with the fourth cycle or clay. Were the sun, moon, and stars 
in existence before this commenced? and if so, why should 
they be obscured through the whole of the three preceding 
cycles, so as never to shine upon the earth? How could they 
be? Or, if they were not in existence, how was the earth 
covered with vegetation during the third period without any 
sun? And how, without a sun, was the forming earth held in 
its orbit ? Such are some of the difficulties of the cycle theory, 
aside from the philological argument exhibited above. 

I know it wilLbe said that six literal clays do not afford suffi- 
cient time for the renewing, reorganizing and repeopling of the 
earth, unless we will suppose many things to have been accom- 
plished almost instantly, and by miracle. All this we allow. 
We do suppose many things, very many, to have been accom- 
plished almost instantly, and by miracle. And those who ad- 
vocate indefinitely long periods must suppose the same. The 
formation of every new species, whether of animal or vegetable, 
was a miracle. There is a law of nature by which a species, 
once created, may propagate itself; but no law by which it may 
bring itself into being ; or by which one species may generate 



CREATION OF THIS WORLD. 241 

another, or may grow, develop, into another. I repeat, there 
is no such law as this ; and hence the commencement of every 
new species involves a miracle, in whatsoever time or manner 
the work may have been accomplished. It is as much a miracle 
to from an acorn, and plant it, and let it grow into an oak, as it 
would be to form the oak itself. It is as much a miracle to 
form an infant, and then let him grow to a man, as it would be 
to form a man. There is no avoiding the supposition of miracles 
in the renewing and repeopling of the earth, in whatever 
manner the work may have been performed. But if we allow 
miracles to have been resorted to at the time of the creation, as 
all reasonable inquirers mnst, then six days, or even a less 
period (if such had been the pleasure of the great Creator) 
would have been amply sufficient for the performance of them 
all. 

It will be said, further, that our interpretation of the six 
days' work is equally inconsistent with the fourth command- 
ment, as the supposition of long periods of time. The com- 
mandment says, "In six days the Lord made heaven and the 
earth, the sea, and all that in them is ; " whereas we have said 
that the six days' work was only the renewing and repeopling 
of a previously created, but now chaotic and desolate world. 
In answer to this it may be said, that the original word trans- 
lated made in the fourth commandment, does not import a literal 
creation , but rather the shaping , the making of one thing from 
another. In this sense the world was literally made in six 
days ; not created, but made over, — made what it uoav is. The 
thick darkness which covered it was dissipated ; the land and 
ocean were separated ; the clouds were lifted up ; the lights of 
heaven shone down upon it ; it was fitted up for the present 
species of animals and vegetables, and they were placed upon 
it. This was the great work of the six days, as before ex- 
plained ; a work strictly accordant with the terms of the fourth 
commandment, and worthy to be commemorated in the weekly 
Sabbath. 

It may be inquired again, on supposition this earth existed a 
long period before it was fitted up for the residence of man, 
why we have no account of this period in the Scriptures. In 

31 



242 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

return, it may be asked, Why should we have any such account? 
Of what use would it be, except to gratify mere curiosity? It 
was enough for the inspired writer to acquaint us, first, with the 
original creation of the world, thus cutting off all ground of 
pantheism and atheism ; and, secondly, of its being reorganized 
and fitted up for the residence of man. These two are the only 
points in which we have any particular personal interest. To 
have proceeded further with the narrative, would have been to 
enter a field of scientific inquiry and curiosity, from which the 
pen of inspiration has been uniformly and wisely restrained. 

It has been made a question, whether what we have called 
"the six days' work "was universal; — whether it extended all 
over the earth, or was confined to that part of the world where 
the human pair were originally placed. This latter opinion has 
some respectable advocates ; but I see not how it can be con- 
sistently maintained. The language of Scripture clearly imports 
that what we commonly call the work of creation was universal. 
And from the very nature of the case, the greater part of this 
stupendous work must have been universal. The earth — the 
whole earth — the same that was originally created from nothing 
— was without form and void, and darkness rested upon the 
entire surface of the chaotic mass. And when the light of the 
first day began to shine it enlightened the whole of it. So when 
the firmament was lifted up, it covered, as it now does, the 
whole face of the earth. Also the seas and the dry land, the 
grass, the trees, the beasts, birds, fishes, and insects, — these 
are found everywhere. And the great lights of heaven, — 
these do not shine alone upon one little corner of the earth, but 
upon the whole of it. And so of the dominion which God 
assigned to man. " Let them have dominion over the fish of 
the sea, and the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that 
moveth upon the earth." The setting apart of a day, too, for 
the purpose of celebrating the work of creation, — a day to be 
observed in all places, and through all time, — shows that this 
work was not confined to some little portion of the globe, but 
was one of universal interest and concern. 

We have no sympathy with interpretations which would limit 
those stupendous displays of the divine power and wisdom, 



CREATION OF THIS WORLD. 243 

goodness and justice, which were made at the creation, and 
afterward, in the deluge, to a small portion only of the Eastern 
continent, where man was originally placed. We see no neces- 
sity or authority for such limitations. They are contradicted 
both by the language of Scripture and the nature and circum- 
stances of the events themselves. They belong to a class of 
interpretations (too common at this day) which would fritter 
away the language of the Bible till it no longer reveals anything 
which might not otherwise have been known as well. 

If it is an extreme of statement to confound the original crea- 
tion with "the six days' work," and suppose (with some) that 
the whole took place together about six thousand years ago, it 
is equally an extreme of statement to" suppose the six days' 
work not to have extended to the whole earth, but only to a 
small portion of it. 

I trust it will appear, from what has been said, that there is 
nothing in the Scriptural account of the creation which conflicts 
at all with any of the revelations of modern science. Christians 
have no reason to fear the deductions of true science. The 
world and the Bible are from the same divine author. The in- 
scriptions on the imbedded rocks and on the sacred page are 
from the same hand. They cannot contradict each other. They 
never did, and, properly interpreted, they never will. Let the 
investigations of science be faithfully and thoroughly pursued, 
— the more thoroughly the better, — and its conclusions will 
always serve, not to confute, but to confirm, the declarations of 
revealed truth. 

The science of geology, which infidels once boasted, and 
Christians feared, would overthrow the Bible, goes rather to 
establish it in several points. It removes entirely some of the 
more plausible objections which were once urged against the 
Bible, and against the being of a God. Christians are really 
under great obligations to the science of geology, and to those 
men who have so diligently and successfully pursued it. But 
let them not be too confident, or presume too far. Let them 
not frame hypotheses upon slight and insufficient grounds, and 
then attempt, by violence, to bring the decisions of Scripture 
into an accordance with them. Such a course may prejudice 



244 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

religion for a time, but it will be sure in the end to injure the 
cause of science, and bring it into contempt. 

The work of creation, which has been considered in this and 
the preceding Lecture, is one highly honorable to the Supreme 
Being. It displays his infinite wisdom and goodness, his un- 
controllable sovereignty, his almighty power, his' perfect fitness 
to reign over all the works of his hand. The creation of this 
world was an event so honorable to God as to become an occa- 
sion of great rejoicing to all the higher orders of intelligent crea- 
tures, who were in existence to behold it. "When I laid the 
foundations of the earth ; when I stretched out the line upon it ; 
when I placed the corner-stone thereof," then "the morning stars 
sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." This 
great event is still the occasion of rejoicing and praise, both to 
saints on earth and angels in heaven. "-While I live," says the 
Psalmist, " I will praise the Lord : I will sing praises unto my 
God while I have my being." Why? "Thou hast made the 
heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Ps. 
civ). And while this song is heard on earth, the angels are 
sounding forth in heaven : "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive 
glory, and honor, and power ; for thou hast created all things, 
and for thy pleasure they are and they were created " (Rev. 
iv. 11). 

If God is the creator of all things, then his intelligent crea- 
tures are bound to love him, to confide in him, to acquiesce in 
his glorious sovereignty, to submit to his will, to serve and glo- 
rify him forever. This may be thought a long inference, but it 
is a just one. Every part and member of it is indisputably just. 
The work of creation shows, not only that God is the absolute 
proprietor of his creatures, and has a right to do what he will 
with his own ; but that he is Avorthy of their supreme love, con- 
fidence, and praise. They ought to love him for what he is. 
They ought to trust in him, to obey and serve him, to submit 
to his will, to rejoice in his government, to praise his glorious 
name, and that forever. Their duty, in this respect, is so plain 
that it cannot be mistaken. They cannot resist or neglect it 
without incurring the blackest guilt. 



THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD. 245 



LECTUEE XXI. 



THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD. 



" God's works of providence," to borrow the language of the 
Westminster divines, " are his most holy, wise, and powerful 
preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions." 

According to this definition, the first work of providence is 
the upholding or preserving of created things. This is, in Scrip- 
ture, expressly ascribed to God, or (which is the same) to 
Christ. " Upholding all things by the word of his power" 
(Heb. i. 3). "By him all things consist" (Col. i. 17). This 
work of upholding has been represented by Descartes, and by 
President Edwards, as no other than a continual creation. 
" God's preserving created things in being," says Edwards, "is 
perfectly equivalent to a continued creation, or to his creating 
those things out of nothing at each successive moment of their 
existence." Again, "God's upholding created substance, or 
causing its existence in each successive moment, is altogether 
equivalent to an immediate production out of nothing at each 
moment." 1 But, with all due deference to so great names, we 
must«think that this is quite an extreme of statement. It is 
confounding the works of creation and providence, which the 
Scriptures everywhere represent as distinct. It is true, indeed, 
that there is no necessary connection between the present exist- 
ence of a created thing and its continued existence even at the 
next moment, so that being once created it can exist on of itself. 
Still, a created thing is an actually existing thing. It is in being. 
And to continue it' in being cannot be the same as to bring it 
into being. The upholding of all things is a work of God's 
power. It is so the work of his power, that should he withdraw 

1 Edwards' Works, Vol. vi. p. 451. Worcester Edition. 



246 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

his supporting hand, no created being or thing could continue 
in existence for a moment. Still, I cannot conceive of it as. a 
perpetual creation. The work of creation brings something 
into being. -The work of preservation, which is one part of the 
great work of providence, continues that existence which crea- 
tion had given. 

This work of preservation not only continues created things 
in existence, it continues them in the possession of their appro- 
priate qualities and attributes, and in subjection to the laws 
which were originally impressed upon them. Material things it 
holds in being, possessed of all the properties and subject to all 
the conditions and laws of matter. It also sustains in existence 
created minds, with all the conditions, laws, and properties 
pertaining to them. 

And here, in the estimation of some, the work of providence 
ends. "It is enough," they say, "that God has created the 
worlds of matter and of mind ; that he has given to each its 
peculiar properties, motions, and laws; and that, in the full 
possession of these, he holds each in existence. The great 
machine is now in operation, and if sustained it will run on of 
itself. It needs not the present power of the great Architect 
to supply the requisite momentum, or to guide its wheels." But 
it will be seen, as we proceed, that this is a very inadequate view 
of providence. If the theory of Edwards went to one extreme 
of statement, this goes quite as much to the other. 

The second work of providence, according to the definition 
above quoted, is that of governing. "Preserving and governing 
all his creatures, and all their actions." This implies, m the 
first place, the absolute disposal of things in providence. God 
is the supreme disposer of events. All the changes taking place 
in the universe, from the highest to the lowest, from the great- 
est to the least, in the worlds of matter and of mind, are the 
results, in some way, of his control. They are all to be included 
in his work of providence. 

But besides this and beyond it there is another work of prov- 
idence which may, in stricter propriety, be denominated govern- 
ment. I refer to God's moral government ; or the government 
which he administers over free, moral, responsible agents. That 



THE PROVIDEXCE OF GOD. 247 

God has created responsible agents, that he upholds them by his 
power, and has undertaken to govern them, not by physical 
force, but by laws and motives, no believer in divine revelation 
can doubt. It is to this work of providence that special refer- 
ence is had when God is set forth as "a great King." He 
administers a government like other kings ; a government which 
is sustained by laws and motives, rewards and punishments. 
This work of moral government, considered in all its relations 
and bearings, is doubtless of more importance than anything 
else in the providence of God. 

The entire work of providence, we have said already, is to be 
regarded as God's work. It is under the direction of his infinite 
wisdom and goodness, and is executed by his power. Still, it 
is not all executed after the same manner. To dispose of mate- 
rial substances is one thing ; to govern mind another ; and to 
control a large class of events, through the instrumentality of 
created minds, is quite another. Yet all are to be regarded as 
in one way or another, directly or indirectly, subject to the 
control of the Supreme Disposer. 

The ^providence of God is universal and particular. In the 
first place it is particular. It extends to particular things, and 
even to the minutest things. Some persons seem to regard the 
Supreme Being as disposing of things only in the general. The 
greater and more important events are subject to his control, 
while those of less consequence are suffered to take place at 
random. But there is the same reason for supposing God to 
direct small events, as great ones. Atoms can no more move 
themselves, independent of God, than worlds can. Besides ; 
who but the omniscient God can determine what events are 
great, and what small? Things may seem little to us which, in 
their connections, are of great consequence. A spark of fire is 
a little thing, but it may cause an explosion, or a conflagration, 
which shall be the ruin of multitudes. A floating atom, or a 
flying insect, may bear on its seemingly little bosom the fate of 
a monarch, or the destiny of an empire. Great effects are often 
the result of little causes ; so that if the government of God 
does not reach to the smallest things, as well as the largest, his 
purposes are liable to be continually frustrated. Accordingly, 



248 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

the Scriptures represent the work of providence as in the strict- 
est, minutest sense particular. "Not a sparrow falls to the 
ground without your Father," and "the very hairs of your 
head are all numbered" (Matt. x. 29). "The lot is cast into 
the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord" (Prov. 
xvi. 33). 

Moreover, the providence of God is strictly universal, extend-' 
ing to all created beings and things throughout the universe. 
That the providence of God extends to all material things ; — 
that it is concerned in all the physical changes which are taking 
place, it is presumed that none but an atheist will deny. But 
there are those who doubt whether it reaches to the moral 
world, and is concerned in directing the free actions of men. 

It may help to satisfy us on this point to consider that, unless 
the providence of God does extend to the moral world, his gov- 
ernment is comparatively a small matter. Of how much conse- 
quence can it be to him, or to any of his creatures, that he 
should roll worlds in their orbits, and direct the manifold oper- 
ations of nature, if he has no efficient providential control over 
the countless myriads of immortal minds which he has created, 
and with which the intelligent universe is filled ? 

Besides, if God has no efficient control over minds, how has 
he fulfilled his predictions in time past ? And how shall he be 
expected to fulfil them in time to come? These predictions 
have respect, in most instances, to the free, responsible actions 
of men ; and how is it possible for God to fulfil them, unless 
he can control the actions of men consistently with their 
freedom ? 

Again, if God has no efficient control over the hearts and 
actions of men, how is he to answer prayer? The favors which 
God's people seek at his hands in prayer are chiefly of the 
moral, spiritual kind, relating to the feelings and actions of 
creatures, — the state of their own hearts, and the hearts of 
others ; and how is it possible for God to answer sUch prayers, 
to bestow such favors, unless he has the hearts of men in his 
hand, to turn them whithersoever he* will? 

Still, again ; if God has no efficient control over the hearts of 
his creatures, how is it that he converts sinners, and sanctifies 



THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD. 249 

believers, and carries forward his holy, spiritual kingdom in the 
earth? The conversion of a sinner consists in a change of 
heart, — a change in his moral feelings, affections, and charac- 
ter. And the sanctification of the believer consists in a further 
advance of the same divine work ; a progression in the exer- 
cise and due manifestation of holy affections. In Scripture, 
these works are both of them ascribed to God ; and they ob- 
viously imply that the hearts of creatures are in his hand, to be 
turned, changed, controlled as he pleases, without at all impair- 
ing their moral freedom. 

It hardly need be said that the agency of God in the moral 
world is directly asserted, and much insisted on, in the Bible. 
It may seem almost superfluous to refer to passages. "The 
preparation of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, 
is from the Lord." " The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord ; 
as the rivers of water, he turneth it whithersoever he will " 
(Prov. xvi. 1 ; xxi. 1). God represents the king of Assyria as 
being as really in his hands (though, of course, in a different 
sense) as the axe is in the hands of the hewer, or the saw in the 
hands of him who shaketh it, or as the rod and the staff are in 
the hands of those that lift them up (Is. x. 5-15). "Thou hast 
wrought all our works in us" (Is. xxvi. 12). "It is God that 
worketh in you to will and to do, of his good pleasure" (Phil, 
ii. 13). 

Let no one think to escape from these, and hundreds of simi- 
lar Scriptures, on the ground that it was not the object of the 
sacred writers to teach any particular system of psychology. We 
do not quote them as teaching any particular system of psychol- 
ogy, but as proving an important Christian doctrine, — a great 
theological fact. We quote them to prove that the reign of God 
is universal ; that he governs the moral world not less than the 
natural ; that his providential control extends to the hearts and 
actions of men, as well as to the circumstances of their lives. 
And all this the inspired writers assert, in terms the most plain 
and incontestible. If as much as this cannot be proved from 
their language, nothing can. 

The manner in which God exercises his government over the 
moral world, we may not be able fully to explain. Of course, 

32 , 



250 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

it is not by physical force, as in the natural world ; but rather 
through the instrumentality of truth, of motives, of moral con- 
siderations, — in a manner agreeing perfectly with the nature 
and properties of the human mind. 

In the kingdoms of both matter and mind, the providence of 
God is administered in accordance with established laws. It 
moves on steadily, regularly (except that, in some instances, it 
has been interrupted by miracles) , so that the subjects of it may 
learn what to expect, and on what to depend. In the material 
world, what are commonly called the laws of nature are but 
established modes of divine operation. And the laws of mind 
are as regular, and as much of divine ordination, as those of 
matter. The providence of God extends to both worlds alike. 
In both, he is accomplishing his holy purposes ; is carrying into 
effect his wise and good designs in a manner agreeing to the 
different natures of each, and in accordance with those laws 
which he has himself appointed. In the language of Scripture, 
he is " working all things after the counsel of his own will " 
(Eph. i. 2). " He is doing according to his will in the armies 
of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can 
stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Dan. iv. 35). 

To the view of providence which has been given, as reaching 
to the hearts and actions of men, it will be objected, that it is 
inconsistent with human freedom. But to this we reply, that, 
so far from being inconsistent with human freedom, it goes to 
sustain and secure it. God has made men free agents ; and, by 
his providence, he preserves and controls them in the exercise 
of a free responsible agency. Suppose his providence over 
them were to be suspended or to cease : Would they be free 
agents ? Would they exist at all ? It is not enough, therefore, 
to say that God's universal providence is not inconsistent with 
the free agency of man. It is that which supports him in the 
exercise of freedom. It is that which gives effect to those laws 
of his being, without which, if he could exist at all, he would 
not be in circumstances to exercise his faculties, and form a 
character as a free, moral, accountable agent. 

It will be further objected, that the view we have taken makes 
God the author of sin. But how the author of sin? Not the 



THE PKOVIDENCE OF GOD. 251 

actor of it ; not the perpetrator, the responsible agent. This is, 
in every case, the sinner. It merely follows, from what has 
been said, that the transgressor sins, and sin takes place, under 
the providential government of God, — that government which 
is sustained and executed by his power, and guided by his wis- 
dom and goodness. If any think that this is making God the 
author of sin, we cannot help it. We cannot avoid the imputa- 
tion by dethroning him. It is no more disparagement to the 
Divine Being, however, to be in this sense the author of sin 
(though we detest the phrase), than to be the author of bugs, 
and toads, and reptiles. 

It is objected still further to the doctrine here advocated, that 
it represents God, not only as the universal cause, but the only 
cause, and differs very little, if at all, from pantheism. But 
this, surely, is said without due consideration, and without so 
much as the semblance of truth. What is pantheism ? Panthe- 
ism, it is well known, has put on different phases, and has been 
variously represented by its advocates. But as much as this 
may be said, in the general : Pantheism makes everything God, 
and God everything. It acknowledges no God aside from 
nature. It makes no distinction between God and what are 
commonly called his works. It denies the existence of a literal, 
personal deity ; making God & personification, and not a person, 
—a figure of speech, and not a reality. In short, it is but 
another name for atheism. And, surely, the views which have 
been exhibited in this Lecture have no connection or affinity 
with sentiments such as these. We represent God as a literal 
being, & person; and as possessing all the qualities and attributes 
of a person. We represent him as essentially distinct from the 
created universe, — those beings and worlds which he has made, 
which he preserves, and over which he reigns. We consider 
him, indeed^ as the great first cause, and, in some sense, the 
universal cause; not to the exclusion of inferior causes, but as 
originating, guiding, and controlling all. He has given exist- 
ence to myriads of intelligent minds, each of which is a being 
by itself, a free, moral agent ; not a part of God, but under the 
government of God, and amenable to his judgment bar. But it 
is needless to waste words in showing that the doctrine of God's 



252 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

universal providence is not pantheism, or anything allied to it. 
Scarcely any two doctrines can be conceived of more entirely 
distinct and opposed to each other than these. 

The doctrine of providence, as here explained, should be 
regarded as a most desirable one. It is desirable, in comparison 
not only with cold and cheerless atheism, but with those forms 
of de\sm which represent Gocl as standing aloof from the world 
he had made, and not concerning himself with it, except in 
directing some of the more important events. It is desirable, 
too, in comparison with those forms of Christian doctrine which 
give to God the government only of the natural world, leaving 
the hearts and characters of men to be reached by him but indi- 
rectly, if at all. The devout mind loves to see God in every- 
thing ; as not only shining in the sun, and whispering in the 
breeze, but roaring in the storm and the tempest. It loves to 
regard all creatures and events as subject, in some way, to his 
providential control, and all the changes which are taking place, 
however individuals may be affected by them, as flowing from 
his all- wise counsel, his heart, and his hand. 

The views of providence which have been exhibited are not 
only desirable, but of great importance. They are important 
theologically. It is impossible to frame a consistent scheme of 
theology, and more especially of Calvinistic theology, without 
incorporating into it, as a first principle, the doctrine of God's 
universal providence. For what is Calvinistic theology ? How 
much is involved in it? What does it teach? It teaches, among 
other things, the eternal and universal purposes and foreknowl- 
edge of God. But how are these universal purposes to be ful- 
filled, but by a universal providence? God's providence must 
be co-extensive with his plans, or the latter will be liable to con- 
tinual defeat. It is also among the teachings of Calvinism, that 
all who shall finally be saved were chosen in Christ. Jesus before 
the world began ; that in the fulness of time they were renewed 
by the Holy Spirit ; that being renewed, they are kept by the 
mighty power of God ; that they are justified, progressively 
sanctified, and brought at length to heaven. Or, to express it 
all, in the language of an apostle : " Whom he did foreknow, he 
also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son ; 



THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD. 253 

and whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom 
he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them 
he also glorified" (Eom. viii. 29, 30). But does not this long 
chain of glorious truth, reaching from eternity to eternity, and 
every successive link of it, imply that God's control over the 
hearts of men is complete and absolute ; that he can renew them, 
and sanctify them, and keep them, and save them, and yet they 
be left to think, feel, choose, and act, with perfect, unembar- 
rassed freedom? Does it not necessarily imply that he can 
"work in them to will and to do of his own good pleasure," 
while they " work out their own salvation with fear and trem- 
bling"? 

In short, Calvinism, like the Bible, throws sinful men com- 
pletely into the hands of God to dispose of them and all their 
concerns, both for this life and that which is to come, according 
to his pleasure ; implying, obviously and necessarily, that God 
rules the moral world as well as the natural, and that his provi- 
dence, like his purposes, is strictly universal. Those who reject 
this great doctrine may call themselves Orthodox and Calvinists, 
if they will ; but their Calvinism can be little more than nomi- 
nal. It must be a heterogeneous, patchwork Calvinism, which 
will not bear examination here ; much less the searching scru- 
tiny of Heaven. 

The doctrine which has been considered is of great importance 
practically, as well as theologically. It lies at the foundation of 
some of the holiest, sweetest exercises of the Christian's heart. 
It furnishes the only proper ground for the exercise of gratitude 
in the reception of favors. Deny the universal providence of 
God, and to whom shall we be grateful for the blessings of life? 
They may not have come from God. They may be of our own 
procuring. Or we may have received them from friends, Avho, 
of course, are entitled to all our gratitude. But if the provi- 
dence of God is particular and universal, then we may know 
always from whom our blessings come. For, come in what man- 
ner or in what channels they may, — whether with or without 
the intervention of human instrumentality, — we know that they 
are the gifts of Gocl, and that to him we should render the trib- 
ute of a grateful heart. Whoever else may be entitled to our 



254 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

thanks, we should never forget that unwearied Benefactor who 
is the author and giver of all our mercies. 

Again : the view of providence which we have taken furnishes 5 
the only ground of submission under trials. Reject the univer- 
sal providence of God, and who can tell to whom the multiform 
ills of life are to be traced? They may be the result of chance, 
or fate, or of our own follies. Or they may have been inflicted, 
maliciously, by others. But when we look upon our afflictions 
as events in the righteous providence of God, — proceeding from 
his wisdom and goodness, his heart and his hand, we have e,very 
reason to bow and submit. And we have just as much reason 
for submission, so far as providence is concerned, when they 
come upon us through the medium of second causes, or through 
the agency of wicked men, as when they proceed directly from 
the hand of God, For second causes are all of them under the 
direction of the great first cause, and neither men nor devils can 
do aught against us without our Father. When we are afflicted 
through the agency of wicked men, we may Be under no obli- 
gations to submit to them. We may rightfully blame them, and 
seek reparation at their hands. But we are under obligations 
to submit to that overruling providence, without which not a 
sparrow falls, and not a hair can be plucked from the head of 
any creature. 

Again : the view which has been taken of the providence of 
God furnishes the only proper ground for cheerful trust and con- 
fidence in respect to the future. Take away this doctrine of 
providence, and what have we left in which to trust? We are 
out at sea, without rudder or compass, sun or sky. The world 
around us is a confused chaos, of which the wisest of creatures 
can discover neither ground nor reason, end nor aim. But give 
us back the universal, all-pervading providence of God, and we 
have no fears. We have One at the helm now who knows, 
under all circumstances, just what to do and how to do it. We 
have a Sovereign on the throne whom no artifice can cheat, 
whom no power can overcome ; who will bring light out of all 
the darkness, and good out of all the evil in the world ; who 
will cause even the wrath of man to praise him, and the remain- 
der of wrath he will restrain. In such a Being it is the privilege 



THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD. 255 

of the Christian, at all times, to trust ; and trusting here, he 
may dismiss his fears, repress his anxieties, and quietly await 
the disposals of his Father's will. 

I only add, that the subject of providence, in all its bearings 
and relations, is a boundless subject. A full exhibition of it, in 
respect to this world, would involve a complete history of the 
world, from its creation to its end. A full exhibition of it, in 
respect to the created universe, would involve an entire history 
of the universe. All I have attempted is to unfold some gen- 
eral principles, which may help to guide our meditations in 
pursuing a subject so vast, so overwhelming. 



256 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUEE XXII. 

' THE DESIGN OR END OF GOD IN HIS WORKS. 

We have already considered the eternal purpose or plan of 
God, in which "he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to 
pass." We have also considered his works of creation and 
providence, by which his eternal purposes are progressively 
executed. There remains yet another question connected with 
this subject : What is God aiming at in all his works ? What 
is the ultimate design or end which he has in view? As it 
would be unreasonable to suppose God to have entered upon 
his vast works without a purpose or plan, so it would be unrea- 
sonable to regard him as working without an end. He must 
have had an end in view ; and as he is infinite in wisdom and 
goodness, we must suppose this to have been the best end, — 
the one most worthy of himself. 

In Scripture, God is represented as being himself, in some 
sense, the end of all his works. " Thou hast made all things for 
thyself' 9 (Prov. xvi. 4). "Thou hast created all things, and 
for thy pleasure they are and were created" (Rev. iv. 11). 
"For whom, and through whom, and to whom are all things" 
(Rom. xi. 36). " For whom are all things, and by whom are 
all things" (Heb. ii. 10). 

In these Scriptures, as I said, God is represented as being 
himself, in some sense, the end of all his works. They were 
made, they exist, they are controlled and governed, for himself. 

And thes*e teachings of the Bible are in strict accordance with 
the dictates of reason. In eternity, when God existed alone in 
the universe, for whom should he have planned and purposed, 
but himself? And besides ; as he is infinitely the greatest and 
best of beings, he is altogether worthy to become an end to 



THE DESIGN OR END OF GOD IN HIS WORKS. 257 

himself; and to have made any other being, or all others, — 
considered as separate from himself, — the end of his works 
would have been to adopt an inferior end, in preference* to one 
that was infinitely superior. 

It has been held by the most respectable theologians, that the 
glory of God was the ultimate end of his works, — that he has 
made and controls all things for the advancement of his own 
glory. But what are we to understand by this phraseology ? 
In what sense can the glory of God be advanced? 

There are two senses in which we may speak of the glory of 
God; viz., his essential glory, and his declarative glory. The 
essential glory of God is the glory of being just what he is, — 
of possessing all those attributes and perfections which crown 
his existence and constitute him God. By the declarative glory 
of God, is meant the manifestation of these perfections, — the 
illustration and exhibition of them to the view of others. 

The question now arises : Can anything be added to God's 
essential glory ? Was he not infinitely wise and holy, glorious 
and happy, before the worlds were made ? And more than this 
he could not be, subsequent to their creation. Is it possible 
that the essential glory of God should be increased ? We do 
not suppose, indeed, that the purposes and works of God have 
added anything to his essential glory. His glory, in this sense, 
cannot be increased. And yet we hold that the purposes and 
works of God have an indispensable connection with his essential 
glory. Did not infinite wisdom and goodness require (so to 
speak) of the Supreme Being that, in eternity, he should form 
just such a plan or purpose as he did form? If then he had not 
formed it, could he have been infinitely wise and good? And 
having formed his plan, did not infinite wisdom and goodness 
require that he should proceed and execute it ? Was it not the 
dictate' of infinite wisdom and goodness that he should commence 
the work of creation just when he did, and carry it on as widely 
and variously as he has done, and execute, in all respects, the 
plan he had formed? Suppose, then, that he had not done this ; 
or that he had not done it all ; could he have been infinitely 
wise and good? 

I make these remarks for the purpose of showing, that 



258 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

although the works of God do not literally add anything to his 
essential glory, they yet hold an indispensable connection with 
it, — so indispensable that, without his purposes and works, he 
could not have been infinitely wise and good. 

But the phrase glory of God, as used in connection with this 
subject, has been generally understood in the other sense, — in 
the sense of his declarative glory. God has created the universe 
and filled it with intelligent creatures, that he might make 
himself known to them ; that he might display before them his 
glorious attributes and perfections forever. 

For God to glorify himself, in this sense, implies two things : 
First, that he should create intelligent beings, capable of know- 
ing, loving, and adoring him. For if there were no beiugs in 
the universe to behold his glory, it would be vain to make an 
exhibition of it. To glorify himself would, in that case, be im- 
possible. But, secondly, God must not only create intelligent 
beings, he must reveal himself to them. He must unfold to 
them the glories of his perfections and character. He must 
make them acquainted with himself. And he must do this, not 
in word only, but in act. It would not satisfy either himself or 
his creatures for him to tell them how • great and wise and 
benevolent he was ; he must illustrate and display his perfections 
in his works. 

And this is what God has actually done, and is doing contin- 
ually ; and in so doing he is glorifying himself. He is promot- 
ing, advancing his declarative glory. It was this that the 
Psalmist had in mind when he said : " The heavens declare the 
glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day 
unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowl- 
edge." " All thy works praise thee, and thy people shall bless 
thee." 

God's works of creation and providence display his power, his 
wisdom, his general goodness, his glorious sovereignty ; while 
his work of redemption displays his justice and his long-suffer- 
ing grace. He has created vast multitudes of intelligent beings, 
in this world, and in other worlds ; and, in his works, he is 
revealing himself to them. He is displaying and glorifying 
himself before them. That he might do this, — that he might 



THE DESIGN OR END OF GOD IN HIS WORKS. 259 

have the means and the opportunity of doing it, — was the great 
end, undoubtedly, for which the worlds were made. 

Perhaps some may think that this is an end unworthy of God. 
But when we consider who the great Creator is, and in what 
relation he stands to the universe, we shall judge differently. 
For a poor dependent creature to desire display, would be 
vanity and sin. For such an one to plan and labor for himself, 
would be selfishness ; because such an one is not worthy to 
become an end, even to himself. For such an one to love him- 
self supremely, and labor only for himself, would be to bestow 
upon his little self a vastly disproportionate degree of attention 
and regard. But not so with God. As he is infinitely more 
worthy than all created beings, it is right that he should love 
himself more than all. To do this is not selfishness in God. 
It is rather a duty which he owes to himself. And to desire to 
display himself before his intelligent creatures, and make them 
acquainted with his perfections and glories, is not vanity in 
God ; it is benevolence. 

This will be still more evident from another consideration. 
To know, love, and enjoy God, in the highest degree of which 
creatures are capable, involves necessarily their greatest good. 
What can be better for them than this ? What can more pro- 
mote their holiness and happiness ? But how is their highest 
good, in this sense, to be attained, unless God is pleased to dis- 
play himself before them? It is, then, the highest benevolence 
in God that he should seek to gratify himself, and bless his 
creatures, in surrounding them forever with the refulgence of 
his glory. 

And this helps to remove a difficulty, which some good men 
have felt, in regard to this subject. It has been thought by 
some that the ultimate end of God, in his works, was not so 
much his own glory as the highest possible good of the created 
universe. But it will be seen, on reflection, that these two 
ideas run together, and involve each other. They amount, in 
fact, to about the same thing. 

It is demonstrable, from<the divine perfections, that, in form- 
ing his eternal plans, and in proceeding to execute them, God 
must have looked to the highest possible good of the universe 



260 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

as a whole, including himself and all his creatures. He was 
wise enough to perceive such a plan as this ; he was good 
enough to prefer and adopt it. It results, therefore, from his 
very perfections, that it must have been perceived and adopted. 
And, in the fiual execution of this perfect plan, the greatest 
good of the whole will infallibly be secured. 

By the greatest good of the whole, however, we do not mean 
the greatest good of each and every individual constituting that 
whole. The greatest good of the whole, taken collectively, and 
considered as a whole, may permit and require that the private 
good of certain individuals should be sacrificed ; provided, 
always, that no injustice is done, — that such individuals receive 
only the due reward of their deeds. The greatest good of the 
universe, as a whole, may require, and undoubtedly will, that 
.incorrigible transgressors shall be punished, as they deserve, 
forever. But the greatest good of the whole, as a whole, I 
think God, in eternity, must have purposed ; and in the execu- 
tion of his purposes, this great end will undoubtedly be accom- 
plished. 

And in doing this, will not the God of heaven glorify himself 
in the highesj; possible degree ? A being of less perfection than 
God might glorify himself by doing all the good in his power. 
An earthly monarch might glorify himself by promoting, to the 
full extent of his ability, the happiness of his subjects. But 
suppose there are no limits to his ability. Suppose him infinite 
in all his perfections. In this case, how can he glorify himself, 
in the highest degree, without securing the highest possible 
good to his dominions ? And how can he promote the highest 
possible good of his dominions, without glorifying himself in 
the highest degree? 

Thus the highest glory of God, and the highest good of the 
universe, as a whole, are found, as I said, to run together. 
They mutually involve each other, and in fact amount to very 
nearly the same thing. Hence, embodying both forms of ex- 
pression in our definition, we may say that the ultimate design 
of God in his works is, to glorify himiself in the highest possible 
degree in promoting the highest possible good of the universe. 
Or, changing the order of the sentence, we may say : The ulti- 



THE DESIGN OR END OF GOD IN HIS WORKS. 261 

mate design of God in his works is to promote the highest pos- 
sible good of the universe as a ichole, and thereby secure his own 
highest glory. This great design God had in view from eternity. 
He has kept it constantly in view, and will do so forever. 
"Whatever God has done, is doing, or will do, his design in all 
is to glorify himself in the highest degree, in promoting the 
best interests of that universe over which he reigns. 

If this be true, then we may know, in the general, God's 
designs or reasons, in all his dealings with men. The dispensa- 
tions of God are often dark and mysterious to us, in this world. 
" Clouds and darkness are round about him." The particular 
ends which he has in view, or reasons which influence him, we 
cannot understand. But if what has been said is true, we need 
never, be at a loss as to his great and ultimate end. We may 
always know what this is. On the large scale, in the most 
general sense, he is so ordering events always (however we 
may be affected by them) as to glorify himself in the highest 
degree, and promote the best good of the whole intelligent 
system. This is the end at which he constantly aims, and "dark, 
trying, afflictive events are but means to this end. They are 
necessary means, — each one a link in that endless chain, which 
is running surely, infallibly, on to the most glorious results. 
How ought this consideration to soothe and comfort the afflicted 
people of God in seasons of deep darkness, and when smarting 
under a Father's rod. If they know not the particular reasons 
why they are afflicted, they may understand the general one. 
And this one is most desirable and glorious, — enough to satisfy 
them for the present, while they wait in patience and confidence 
for further revelations of their Father's will. 

And what has been said of the divine dispensations, in this 
world, may be extended to the next. W r e may know the great 
end or design which God has in view in all his treatment of 
creatures there. Most persons would say, perhaps, that God 
will be glorified in the sanation of all the saved ; but will he 
not also be glorified in the destruction of all the lost ? If he 
made Paul for his own glory, and the highest good of the uni- 
verse, did he not also make Judas Iscariot for the same end? 
And will not the case of Judas be overruled for this end as 



262 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

surely as that of Paul? Judas is eternally lost to himself. 
" Good were it for that man if he had never been born." But 
Judas is not lost to God, or lost to the universe. God will be 
glorified in him, and the universe will be benefited by his 
example of suffering, and by his destiny forever. " Though 
Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious" (Is. xliv. 5). 
Sinners may rage against God, may break his laws, and ruin 
themselves ; but they can never defeat one of his purposes, or 
tarnish his glory in the slightest degree. 

The views which have been taken of this great subject are of 
importance, in order that we may judge aright of the truths and 
the dispensations of God. If the last end of God in his works 
were (as some suppose) the highest happiness of his creatures, 
or of that portion of them which we see around us here ; if their 
happiness had been the centre and end of all his aims ; this 
world, certainly, had been a very different place from what we 
find it, and the Bible had been a very different book. It is im- 
possible to account for the revelations of God's word, or the 
facts of his providence, on such a theory as this, or to reconcile 
them with such an end. But if (as the Scriptures assure us) 
"God hath made all things for himself"; if he is himself the 
centre and end of all his works ; if his own highest glory (in- 
volving, as it does, the best good of the universe) is the grand 
object at which he aims ; then, though there may be mystery in 
his word and in his providence, there is no absurdity, no con- 
tradiction between them. God may permit the existence of 
sin and suffering, in this world and in the future world ; and it 
may be necessary to his great purpose that he should. God 
may, in this view, be a sovereign. He will be a sovereign. 
And he will secure, not arbitrarily, but in his own wisest way, 
and by his own wisest means, the great object and end which 
he has in view. 

Again ; the views which have been presented give us the • 
most exalted conceptions of the g£ory and blessedness of the 
Supreme Being. The character of any being will depend essen- 
tially on what is to him the great object of life, — the end which 
he desires to accomplish. If this is a good and worthy end, his 
character will be good; but if the opposite, his character will 



THE DESIGN OR END OF GOD IN HIS WORKS. 263 

be bad. Now we have seen that the great end which God has 
before him in all his works is the noblest possible, — the most 
worthy and excellent that can be conceived. His own highest 
glory ! The greatest possible good of the whole intelligent 
system I What can be better or more desirable than this ! 
What a lustre does it shed on the whole character of God, that 
he has proposed to himself such an end ! How happy must he 
be in the contemplation of it, and in seeing all events rolling 
on, conspiring together in his providence, for its complete 
accomplishment ! 

I only add : If God is glorifying himself in all his works, 
then his creatures ought, in all things, to seek his glory. In 
view of the principles which have been laid down, the requisi- 
tion seems perfectly reasonable : " Whether ye eat, or drink, or 
whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God." "Wherefore, 
glorify God, in your body and in your spirit, which are God's." 



264 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUEE XXHL 

GOD THE SUPREME DISPOSER, AND A MORAL GOVERNOR. 

In my last Lecture, I spoke of the glory of God as the great 
object and end of all his works. In all that he does, in all that 
he ever will do, the prime object of the Supreme Being is to ex- 
hibit himself, to display his perfections, to show forth his glory ; 
so that his intelligent creatures may have the means of knowing, 
loving, and enjoying him in the highest degree of which they 
are capable, — which involves their highest good. 

In displaying his glory to the view of creatures, God necessa- 
rily exhibits himself in different aspects and lights. He repre- 
sents himself as discharging different offices and works. Viewed 
in one aspect, we behold his power, in another his wisdom, in 
another his goodness and his truth. In fulfilling one office, he 
displays his glorious, sovereignty ; in another, his glorious jus- 
tice and grace. In these ways God makes a more full exhibition 
of himself than would otherwise be possible. He glorifies him- 
self in the highest degree. 

Among the offices which the great God fulfils, and in the ful- 
filling of which he shows forth his glory, are those of Supreme 
Disposer and Moral Governor. I adverted to these offices in 
my Lecture on Divine Providence ; but their great importance 
requires that the distinction between them be still further illus- 
trated and applied. 

In different parts of the Bible, God speaks, and is spoken of, 
in each of these offices and works. "I am the Lord, and there 
is none else. I form the light and create darkness. I make 
peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things " (Is. xlv. 
6, 7). Again, in a parallel passage : "I am God, and there is 
none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from 



GOD THE SUPREME DISPOSER, AND A MORAL GOVERNOR. 265 

ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, my coun- 
sel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Is. xlvi. 9, 10). 
"He is of one mind, and none can turn him, and whatsoever his 
soul desireth, even that he doeth" (Job. xxiii. 13). "He doeth 
according to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the 
inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand, or say unto 
him, What doest thou?" (Dan. iv. 35). "Hath not the potter 
power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto 
honor, and another to dishonor?" "I will have mercy on whom 
I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will 
have compassion" (Rom. ix. 15, 21). "Who worketh all things 
after the counsel of his own will" (Eph. i. 11). 

In these and the like passages, God speaks, and is spoken of, 
in the high character of Supreme and Sovereign Disposer. It 
was in this office of Supreme Disposer that he, in eternity, formed 
the plan of all his future operations. It was a boundless plan, 
extending through all space and time, and to ail contingencies 
and events. It was an infinitely perfect plan, requiring no 
change, admitting of no improvement or alterations. At the 
appointed season, and in fulfilment of his eternal purpose, God 
brought the worlds into existence ; some higher and some lower ; 
some material and some spiritual ; some nearer the great source 
and centre of being, and some at remoter distances from it. He 
upholds in existence the worlds he has made ; he moves them 
in regular order, according to established laws ; he has filled 
them with living creatures of different orders and species, from 
the highest angel to the meanest worm ; he preserves and dis- 
poses of all things according to his pleasure. Not a planet rolls 
or^an angel flies, but by his power; not a hair is plucked or a 
sparrow falls without his notice. Not a human being is born or 
dies, is prospered or afflicted, is saved or destroyed, but his 
hand is, in some way, concerned in it all. 

The affairs of communities and nations, as well as of individ- 
uals, are all subject to his providential control. He builds up, 
or plucks down, as seemeth good in his sight. He often clashes 
the guilty nations one against another, and makes them the in- 
struments of their own destruction. " God hath spoken in his 
holiness : I will rejoice ; I will divide Shechem, and mete out the 

34 



266 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

valley of Succoth. Gilead is mine, and Manasseh is mine ; 
Ephraim also is the strength of mine head ; Judah is my law- 
giver ; Moab is my washpot ; over Edom will I cast out my 
shoe; Philistia, triumph thou because of me" (Ps. Ix. 6, 8). 
Even those events which are brought about by human agency 
are not exempt from God's providential control. "Man's heart 
deviseth his way, but the Lord directeth his steps." "The lot 
is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is from the 
Lord" (Prov. xvi. 9, 33). 

Thus God is not only the original contriver and creator, but 
he is the Supreme Disposer of all things ; and the devout mind 
loves to regard him in this light. He loves to see God exalted 
high above all contingencies ; beyond the reach of all his foes. 
He delights to look up and behold him, rolling along the great 
wheel of his providence in its appointed course; bringing light 
out of darkness and good out of evil, and overruling all things, 
however they may seem to us at present, for his own highest 
'glory and the greatest good. It is under impressions such as 
these that the believing heart exclaims: "Be thou exalted, O 
God, above the heavens, and thy glory above all the earth." 
" Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye 
the Lord." 

Such is God, the Supreme Disposer. Let us now turn and 
contemplate him in that other aspect of which I spoke ; viz., as 
Moral Governor. The moral government of God is that gov- 
ernment of law, which he exercises over intelligent and moral 
beings. In kind, it resembles human governments ; and, like 
them, is administered by laws and motives, rewards and punish- 
ments. It differs essentially from that sovereign disposal of 
things of which we have spoken. That is altogether in the 
hands of God, and men have naught to do with it, except to sub- 
mit and rejoice in it. But in the moral government of God men 
have a deep and active concern. They are themselves the re- 
sponsible subjects of this government. Its motives are addressed 
to them. Its laws bind them. If obedient, they are entitled to 
its promised rewards ; if disobedient, to its just punishments. 
As Supreme Disposer, God orders all the circumstances and 
events of our lives according to his pleasure ; while, as Moral 



GOD THE SUPREME DISPOSER, AND A MORAL GOVERNOR. 267 

Governor, he makes known to ns his will, and presses upon us, 
with the authority of a sovereign and the affection of a father, 
our obligations to obey. • 

The moral government of God implies several things. First. 
of all, it implies (what is true) that he has surrounded himself 
with the proper subjects of a moral government ; or, in other 
words, that he has given existence to intelligent beings, -—free, 
moral, responsible agents, who are legitimately subject to him, 
and bound to obey him. 

This government further implies (what is true) that God has 
given to his intelligent creatures a perfectly holy and righteous 
law, to be the rule of their conduct. He has not only enacted 
such a law, but published it. He has told his creatures what 
their duty is, and what they must do to enjoy his favor. 

God's perfect moral government also implies, that his law — 
which is holy, just, and good — be firmly sustained and right- 
eously administered. Nothing must be done, or suffered to be 
done, to tarnish the honor of the law, or detract from its author- 
ity, or weaken the obligations of creatures to obey. God must 
reward the obedient, and punish the disobedient, and each 
according to the measure of his deserts ; so that all may see 
that the government is administered in perfect holiness, justice, 
and truth. 

Or if, in any case, the disobedient are saved from punishment, 
this must be done upon grounds that will satisfy justice and 
fully sustain the authority of laiv. If forgiving mercy' is exer- 
cised towards transgressors, then some expedient of mercy must 
be provided by which all the ends of law and government shall 
be as fully secured as in the infliction of the threatened penalty. 
If such an expedient can be provided, then a righteous moral 
governor, may, if he pleases, and on such terms as he pleases, 
extend forgiveness to the transgressor; because, by the suppo- 
■ sition, forgiveness, under such circumstances, does no dishonor 
to the law. 

This last remark is of the more importance to us, since, under 
the moral government of God, such an expedient of mercy has 
actually been provided in behalf of sinful men. I refer to the 
atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, — the grand expedient of 



268 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

God's grace, — on the ground of which, and of which alone, 
human beings can be saved. We have all rebelled against that 
holy government under which it is our privilege to live. We 
have broken the law of God, incurred its penalty, and justice 
demands that the penalty be executed. But the Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Lord of Glory, has consented to die for us. He has 
borne our sins in his own body on the tree. He has thus mag- 
nified the broken law, and made it honorable. He has vindi- 
cated the authority and satisfied the justice of the Supreme 
Ruler, and laid a foundation on which fallen, guilty, ruined 
sinners may be pardoned and saved. 

This great work of atonement, it will be perceived, stands in 
immediate connection with the moral government of God. 
Under a government of physical agencies it would not be 
needed, and could not be applied. But under a perfect govern- 
ment of law which has been trangressed, an atonement is 
needed, and must be applied, or the transgressor must himself 
suffer the due reward of his deeds. 

On the ground of the atonement which Christ has made, God' 
may, as a righteous Moral Governor, offer pardon to sinners, on 
the simple condition of repentance and faith ; and such an offer 
he has actually made, and is making, in the gospel. "Return 
to me, and I will return to you." "Let the wicked forsake his 
way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return 
unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our 
God, for he will abundantly pardon." 

And on the ground of the atonement, God may not only make 
such offers to sinful men, but he may earnestly desire, and he 
does, that men would accept them. He may use all proper 
motives with them to bring them to an acceptance. He may 
invite, entreat, and warn and urge. In the fulness of his heart 
he may exclaim : " O that there were such an heart in them, 
that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, 
that it might be well with them, and with their children for- 
ever ! " " O that they were wise, that they understood this, 
that they would consider their latter end!" "Turn ye, turn 
ye, for why will ye die?" 

Such language would not become the Divine Being, as a 



GOD THE SUPREME DISPOSER, AND A MORAL GOVERNOR. 269 

Supreme Disposer, who was doing " according to his pleasure 
in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth" ; 
who was "working all things after the counsel of his own will." 
But it does become him as a Moral Governor, who, at an infinite 
expense, has opened a way for the pardon and salvation, of lost 
men, and who is graciously calling them back to their duty. 

The distinction between Supreme Disposer and Moral Gov- 
ernor may be illustrated by another distinction, referred to in 
my Lecture on Divine Decrees ; viz., that between the purposes 
of God and Ms law. This distinction, we then said, is a very 
obvious one, and of great importance in theology. But it is no 
more obvious or important than that we are here considering ; 
for it is part and parcel of the same thing. The eternal pur- 
poses of God belong to him as Supreme Disposer. They con- 
stitute the boundless and perfect plan, according to which all 
the movements of his hand are conducted. "He worketh all 
things after the counsel of his own will." But the law of God 
pertains to his office and work as Moral Governor. It is the 
rule of conduct which he has prescribed to his creatures, and 
which he is bound, as Moral Governor, to enforce. Heaven 
and earth may sooner pass away than that one jot or tittle of 
the law should fail. 

The distinction here set forth between God's office and work 
as Supreme Disposer and as Moral Governor, is one of great 
importance, theologically and practically \ It helps to harmonize 
some seemingly discrepant representations of Scripture, and to 
remove some formidable theological difficulties. In many 
Scriptures, some of which have been already quoted, God is 
represented as sitting on the circuit of the heavens, having all 
hearts in his hand, and all creatures and events under his sov- 
ereign control. "He is of one mind, and none can turn him, 
and whatsoever his soul clesireth, even that he doeth." "His 
counsel shall stand, and he will do ail his pleasure." But, in 
another class of passages, he seems to use a very different 
language. He represents himself as earnestly desiring the con- 
version and salvation of men, even of those who are not saved. 
" How shall I give you up, Ephraim ! How shall I deliver you, 
Israel!" "O that thou hadst hearkened unto my command- 



270 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ments ! Then had thy peace been as a river, andthy righteous- 
ness as the waves of the sea." "O that thou hadst known, in 
this thy day, the things that belong to thy peace ; but now they 
are hidden from thine eyes." 

Passages of this description are very numerous in the Bible ; 
and how are they to be reconciled with those other Scriptures 
which have been quoted ? If God so earnestly desires the sal- 
vation of all men, why are not all saved? If he doeth whatso- 
ever his soul desireth, why does he not gratify his benevolent 
desires, in brino-m^ all men to the knowledge of the truth? 

This difficulty, which has been a perplexing one to ministers 
and others, can best be obviated, as it seems to me, by recurring 
to the important distinction here. indicated, — that between the 
Divine offices of Supreme Disposer and Moral Governor. God's 
purposes, which belong to him as Supreme Disposer, are never 
crossed. In respect to these, he says of himself, and says truly : 
"My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." And 
it is truly said of him : " Whatsoever his soul desireth, even 
that he doeth." But God's moral law is a very different thing; 
and it will not follow, because his counsel, his purpose, his 
great plan of providence is not defeated, that his law is never 
broken. Nor will it follow, because God, as Supreme Disposer, 
does all his pleasure, that as a benevolent Moral Governor he 
may not desire, and that, too, with an earnestness of which we 
can form no conception, the salvation of the multitudes who are 
never saved. As Supreme Disposer, God moves in one sphere, 
— fulfils one office, — performs one class of divine operations; 
while as Moral Governor he moves in another sphere, — fills 
another office, — presents another aspect of character, — per- 
forms quite another kind of work. In both he glorifies himself, 
but does it in very different ways. As Supreme Disposer, God 
holds a language perfectly true, and altogether befitting him in 
that high and sovereign capacity ; while as Moral Governor he 
uses another language, not inconsistent with the former, equally 
true, and equally becoming to him, in the capacity in which he 
now speaks. 

In administering a moral government over his intelligent off- 
spring, God desires their obedience. He desires the obedience 



GOD THE SUPREME DISPOSER, AND A MORAL GOVERNOR. 271 

of them all. And when any of them have wandered from him, 
he earnestly desires their return. At an infinite expense, he 
has opened a way in which they may return ; and he calls out 
to them, and cries after them, to turn their feet backward to 
the paths of life. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no 
pleasure in the death of him that dieth, but rather that he turn 
from his wicked ways and live. Turn ye, turn ye, for why 
will ye die ? " Such language is altogether befitting the Divine 
Being, as a benevolent Moral Governor, — administering a 
government of law over, not only intelligent creatures, but 
apostate creatures, for whom a provision of mercy- has been- 
made ; but not at all befitting him as the sovereign and supreme 
Disposer, who doeth according to his will in heaven and on 
earth, — who "hath mercy on whom he- will have mercy, and 
whom he will he hardeneth." 

Let it not be said that the course of reasoning here employed 
implies that there are two Gods. It is the one God of whom 
we speak, presenting himself before us in different offices and 
lights, and performing different works ; thus displaying himself 
more adequately and truly, and shining upon us in the reful- 
gence of his glory. 

Nor let any one think to refute our reasoning, by comparisons 
drawn from mere earthly relations, as of a father to his chil- 
dren, or of a ruler to his subjects. The truth is, no earthly 
relations can reach the vastness of the. subject in hand. An 
earthly parent may stand in the relation of moral governor, in 
a small way, to the children under his care. He may give 
them laws, and desire and exact obedience. But can he stand to 
them in that other and higher relation of Creator and Supreme 
Disjjoser? Can he address them in language appropriate to 
such a relation? Or is it as important for him, and as difficult, 
as it is for God, to exhibit himself adequately to his children ; 
thereby creating a necessity for different forms of manifestation, 
— for different offices and works ? I make these remarks for 
the purpose of showing how dangerous it is to attempt illus- 
trating (except to a little way) divine things by human things ; 
or to attempt refuting the plain declarations of God's Word, by 
comparisons drawn from mere human relations. 



272 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

It is of great importance for the creatures of God to regard 
him,, and believe in him, in both the aspects which have been 
presented, since otherwise they cannot get a just and adequate 
view of him. They cannot see him or love him as he is. The 
same is also important, since both the views which have been 
given have high practical bearings, and are indispensable to the 
formation of a complete and well-proportioned Christian char- 
acter. We must regard our God in the capacity of Sovereign 
and Supreme Disposer, in order that we gain the most exalted 
conceptions of him, and may repose and rejoice in him, under 
all circumstances. There are times when we want to look up 
to God as a Sovereign, sitting on the circuit of the heavens, and 
rolling into effect his undisturbed decrees, — bringing light out 
of darkness and good out of evil, and causing the wrath of man 
to contribute to his praise. There are times when, if we could 
not take these high, these ennobling views of God, we should 
have no ground of hope or comfort left. 

At the same time, we love to regard the Almighty as a 
righteous Moral Governor, our most beneficent ruler, our 
heavenly Father, who has given us the best of laws, and whose 
government over us is perfectly wise and good. Especially do 
we love to regard him in the dispensations of his grace, — open- 
ing a way of recovery for the lost, and calling out to his wan- 
dering children to turn unto him and live. Without these 
views of God, we might adore and fear before him, but we 
could not love him as we now may. We could never be melted, 
as we now should be, in the ever warming, enlivening beams of 
his tenderness and love. 

The Christian world affords numerous examples of the danger 
of taking but partial views of God, — of entertaining a one- 
sided vieiv of his character. To say nothing of those who so 
represent the sovereignty of God, as to cut off entirely the free 
agency of man;* or of those, on the other hand, who so exalt 
the human will, as to leave God no certain control over the 
hearts of his creatures ; there are undoubtedly pious persons, 
sincere Christians, whose characters suffer, on account of the 
partial, one-sided views which they are led to take of the 
Supreme Being. Here, we will suppose, is a class of religion- 



GOD THE SUPREME DISPOSER, AND A MORAL GOVERNOR. 273 

ists, pious persons, who dwell almost exclusively upon the 
sovereignty of God. They love to think of his wise purposes, 
his sovereign decrees. They rejoice that " the counsel of the 
Lord standeth forever, and the thought of his heart to all 
generations " ; that " he is one mind, and none can turn him, 
and whatsoever his soul clesireth even that he doeth." The 
effect of dwelling upon these and the like topics is, to form a 
particular type of Christian character, — trustful, stable, and 
for the most part joyful ; but yet hard, rigid, wanting in ten- 
derness and gentleness, sometimes in conscientiousness, and in 
a wakeful, active concern for the good of souls. Persons of 
this character may be induced to leave to the sovereignty of 
God what they ought to be using means to accomplish them- 
selves. 

There is another class of Christians who, owing to wrong in- 
structions, or prejudice, or some other cause, think little of the 
sovereignty of God in his purposes and in redemption. They 
do not rightly understand the subject ; they are afraid of it. 
As it presents itself to their mind,. they feel no complacency in 
it. They prefer to dwell on another class of subjects ; — the 
goodness of God, more especially as manifested in the gospel ; 
the love of Christ, in consenting to come into the world and die 
for sinners ; the freeness, the universality of the gospel offers ; 
the various motives of the gospel, and the obligations of men 
everywhere to embrace it. Now the dwelling so constantly on 
topics of this nature, to the exclusion of others, goes to form a 
particular type of Christian character, and a very different one 
from that last exhibited. These men will be earnest and active, 
at least at times. Their love, their zeal, will rise very high. 
But they will be fitful, unstable, blown about by the gusts of 
feeling or the force of circumstances, like a ship without anchor, 
ballast, or helm. They need those high views of the sovereignty 
of God to which they have never yet attained, to moor them ; to 
sustain them ; to give them confidence in seasons of darkness, 
as well as of light ; to lead them to adore and fear God, as well 
as love him ; in short, to give symmetry and proportion to 
their Christian characters, and form them in a meetness for 
heaven. 

35 



274 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

The two classes of persons here referred to are supposed, 
both of them, to be truly pious ; and the characters of both are 
formed (as every person's must be) according to the views 
which they respectively entertain. And the characters of both 
are one-sided, out of proportion, just because they have been 
led to take but partial, one-sided views of God. We must 
habitually think of God, not only as Supreme Disposer, but as 
Moral Governor ; not only in the steady march of his glorious 
sovereignty, but in his tender love for dying men. We must 
think of him in his ivhole character, as he has revealed himself 
in the Scriptures ; and then, if we are Christians, we' shall love 
him in his whole character ; our hearts will be formed into his 
whole image ; and we shall* become meet for the inheritance of 
the saints in light. 

As the two aspects in which we have been led to view the 
divine character are very distinct, so the duties resulting from 
them are distinct also. We are to adore and fear, in view of 
the divine sovereignty. We are to submit to it, and rejoice in 
it. We are to stay ourselves upon it at all times, and we shall 
not be greatly moved. 

But as active beings, free moral agents, bound to avoid the 
evil and choose the good, and to do good to the utmost of our 
ability, we have to do with God chiefly as a Moral Governor. 
His holy law is binding upon us. Under all circumstances, this 
is to be the rule of our life. With his sovereign purposes, we 
have, in this view, nothing to do. They are, in the general, 
unknown to us ; and so far as they are known, they are not, 
like the law, a rule of conduct. We have indeed broken the 
divine law, and incurred its fearful penalty ; but as a kind, 
paternal Moral Governor, God is unwilling to give us up. He 
has opened a way of recovery for us, and in all the benignity of 
his infinite heart, he is crying after us to be wise. "Ho, every 
one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters." " Come unto me, 
all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." 
Our first and immediate duty is to listen and comply. Tenderly 
invited to come, we must come, and receive, with a full heart, 
the salvation of the gospel. 

And having this salvation ourselves, we must do all in our 



GOD THE SUPREME DISPOSES, AND A MORAL GOVERNOR. 275 

power to impart it to others. We must not trust to the divine 
sovereignty to accomplish what it belongs to us instrunientally 
to perform. Paul was a firm believer in the sovereignty of 
God ; yet who ever burned with a more ardent desire, or 
labored with a more untiring assiduity for the salvation of 
souls ? Happy he who takes the same views of the divine char- 
acter as the Apostle Paul, and forms his character after the 
same model. 



276 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUEE XXIY. 

THE HUMAN MIND. 

Ix several of our last Lectures, we have treated directly of 
God. We have inquired into the mysterious mode of the 
divine existence,— a trinity in unity, three persons in one God. 
We have discussed the purposes of God, — that boundless, prov- 
idential plan, stretching from eternity to eternity, and extend- 
ing to all events, little and great, whether in the natural or the 
moral world. We have considered some of the works of God, 
by which his eternal purpose is executed ; particularly his works 
of creation and providence. We have looked into the ultimate 
design or end of God in his works, — his own highest glory, 
and the greatest possible good of the intelligent universe, as a 
whole. 

We might now proceed, at once, to a consideration of God's 
work of redemption, by which another portion of his great plan 
is executed ; but, previous to this, it will be necessary to inquire 
into the nature, the capacities, the character, the condition of 
that portion of God's creatures who are to be redeemed. In 
prosecuting this inquiry we turn, for the time, from God to 
man. We turn from theology, in the stricter sense of the term, 
to a consideration of anthropology. 

Man is a complex being, made up of two distinct and per- 
fectly dissimilar substances ; a material and corruptible body, 
and an immaterial, incorruptible, and immortal soul. These 
two parts of the man are mysteriously and most intimately 
united in this life. They are so united that each exerts a pow- 
erful influence on the other ; the soul affecting the body, and 
the body the soul. Of the body, we shall have little occasion 



THE HUMAN MIND. 277 

now to speak. Our principal concern is with the mind, — the 
soul. 

A moment's reflection will satisfy any one that the subject of 
the human mind, and that of religion, run very near to each 
other. They so intermingle, run together, that it is impossible 
correctly to understand the latter without some right concep- 
tions of the former. For example : an important doctrine of 
evangelical religion is that of depravity. But what is deprav- 
ity ? And where is it?. It belongs, obviously, to the mind ; its 
seat is in the mind ; and how can it be rightly understood with- 
out some knowledge of the human mind ? And so of the doc- 
trine of regeneration. Regeneration is a change in the mind, — 
a deep and radical change ; and how shall we understand the 
nature of it, and be able satisfactorily to explain it, without a 
right understanding of the mind itself? And so of the difficult 
subject of moral agency. This, with all its varied connections 
and influences, pertains directly to the mind; and in vain shall 
we endeavor to understand it, without a correct mental philoso- 
phy. In our religious discussions, w T e have much to say about 
sin and holiness. But both these have their seat in the mind. 
The influences of the Spirit, too, are exerted upon the mind. 
And all those graces and virtues, which are the fruits of the 
Spirit, and which go to constitute the Christian character, be- 
long to the mind. Indeed, both the salvation of the gospel, and 
the destruction from which it delivers, attach chiefly, though 
not exclusively, to the human mind. 

These remarks are intended to show the very intimate con- 
nection between the religion of the Bible and the mind of man, 
and the necessity of a correct knowledge of mind in order to a 
right understanding of the gospel. 

The human mind may be considered under four several de- 
partments ; viz., the sensational, the intellectual, the emotional, 
and the voluntary. 

Our sensations are the impressions made upon our minds, 
through the external organs of sense. In these we are entirely 
passive. When the external organ is in a healthy state, and is 
approached through its appropriate medium, sensation will be 
produced, whether we will or not. 



278 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Sensation lias sometimes been confounded, though improperly, 
with external perception. It is through our sensations, or by 
means of them, that the intellect perceives external things. 
Sensation is intimately connected with perception, though dis- 
tinct from it. 

Our sensations have also been confounded with our emotions 
or feelings ; but this cannot be true. Our sensations and con- 
sequent external perceptions often excite emotion, — strong 
emotion ; but the sensation itself is not emotion. What can 
be more different than the sensation 01 sight, and the feelings 
awakened by what we see ; or than the sensation of hearing, 
and the feelings excited within us by what we hear ? 

Our sensations lie nearest of all our mental affections to the 
outer world. They are those which are first awakened by the 
outer world, and through which all our knowledge of that world 
is obtained. 

The second great department of mind is that denominated the 
understanding or intellect. This is the power which perceives, 
thinks, judges, remembers, imagines, reasons. It has to do 
primarily and chiefly with our ideas and thoughts. It is by the 
understanding or intellect that ideas are first received. It is 
here that they are retained, recalled, considered, associated, 
and compared. 

Our ideas, as to their origin, are of two classes, —external and 
internal. They may ail be traced either to the world without 
us, or the world within. With the former class, we become 
acquainted through the external senses; with the latter by con- 
sciousness. In other words, we are conscious of them. 

Our first, our earliest ideas, are chiefly of external origin. 
As soon as we are ushered into life, our senses begin to make 
us acquainted with external objects. And children, at the first, 
are chiefly interested in such things. They are little more than 
creatures of sense. The same is true also of savages, and of 
persons who are but partially civilized and educated. Tell them 
stories ; talk to them of occurrences in the outer world ; and 
you have no difficulty in gaining their attention. But turn to 
what passes in their own minds, — their processes of thought, 
their states of feeling, the character of their internal exercises 



THZ HOAX 3HND. 279 

I 

and affections, — and you have entered a region where they will 
hare little ability or inclination to follow you. 

"We have the power, not only to acquire ideas, external and 
internal, but also to recall them, or receive them had: into the 
mind, when thev are o-one from it. Both these powers belong 
to the intellect. The former is commonly called perception, the 
latter, conception. This power of conception, — the power of 
recalling or receiving back ideas which have before been in the 
mind, is one of vast importance to us. It is one of the utmost 
necessity, and of far-reaching influence. Without it, it would 
be impossible to remember, to reason? or to exercise the imagi- 
nation : for what are commonly called memory and imagination 
are nothing more than the power of conception, modified by 
other mental exercises and states. The remembrance of a thing 
is but the conception of it as something known to be past : and 
a fancy sketch — a vrork of the imagination — is but a train of 
conceptions associated, not according to fact, but by the fancy 
of its author. 

This power of conception is not directly under the control of 
the will. TTe cannot recall an idea at pleasure. And yet the 
will has an indirect control over it. TThen an idea is suggested, 
or comes into the mind, according to the established Lvws of 
mental association, we may hold it, and dwell upon it: and' 
among the several ideas suggested by it, we may select this or 
that, and so direct the train of our thoughts almost at pleasure. 

In this indirect control over the thoughts, our personal respon- 
sibilities, in no small measure, consist. The commencement of 
moral influence upon us, good or bed, is precisely here. A 
good thought is suggested to our minds, it may be by some pious 
Mend, or some guardian angel, or by the Holy Spirit. This 
now may be cherished, or repelled. If cherished, it may lead 
to other kindred thoughts, and these to others, till the affections 
become interested and the heart is changed. But if the good 
thought be repelled, the mind is left empty, swept and gar- 
nished, for some sinful intruder to come in and find a lodgment. 

It is in the thoughts that temptation always commences. 
Some seducing object is presented, or some tempting thought is 
thrust into the mind. If this is treated as our Saviour treated 



280 m CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

* 

his temptations ; if it is instantly resisted and repelled, it leaves 
behind it no taint of sin. But if the seducing thought is har- 
bored and indulged, it will lead on to others, and these to others, 
till the whole mind is corrupted, and the character, it may be, 
ruined. A good thought is a treasure of inestimable value.' It 
is an angel of mercy, and should be received and treated as 
such. But an evil thought is a fiery dart of the adversary, 
which should be resisted and repelled, as we would the intrusion 
of the old serpent himself. 

Besides perception and conception, there is another intellec- 
tual ppwer of great importance to us : I mean the power of per- 
ceiving relations, — commonly called judgment. When we see, 
or think of, two or more objects, we are capable of comparing 
them, and of discovering a variety of relations between them. 
One, it may be, is longer than the other, or shorter, greater or 
smaller, whiter or blacker, colder or hotter, or more or less 
beautiful. Or we may discover the relations of resemblance or 
difference, of fitness or unfitness, of proportion or disproportion, 
or that of cause and effect. There is no end to the relations 
subsisting between external objects, and also between our inter- 
nal ideas. The faculty by which we perceive these relations is 
called judgment; and it is one of vast importance to us. It 
enters into those mental processes commonly called abstraction 
and generalization. It enters into every process of reasoning, 
and without it we could not reason at all'. 

The connection of this power of perceiving relations with 
reasoning, is very obvious, and may be easily explained. The 
perception of a relation is a judgment, and the expression of the 
judgment in words is a proposition. Thus I perceive between 
two objects the relation of resemblance, which perception is a 
judgment. I express the judgment in a proposition, when I 
say : "These two objects are alike." 

Now, a process of reasoning is the putting together of propo- 
sitions in such a way, as to present a relation which, at first 
view, was not obvious. Or it is so to put together propositions 
as, from a truth already known, to educe one which before was 
not known. Such is reasoning. The whole process is made up 
of propositions ; and every proposition is but the expression ot 



THE HUMAN MIND. 281 

a judgment. This shows the indispensable connection between 
reason and judgment. Without the faculty of judgment, — the 
faculty of perceiving relations, — it would be impossible to reason 
at all. 

But I must not dwell longer on the intellectual department of 
the human mind. To explain it fully would be to write a trea- 
tise on intellectual philosophy ; which is no part of my present 
plan. 

We pass to the third great department of mind, — the emo- 
tional, the sensibilities. By some writers, this whole region of 
mind is ignored, or rather is confounded with the will. They 
make all our mental exercises to be either intellectual or volun- 
tary, referring the entire range of the sensibilities to the will. 
But this, obviously, is an imperfect classification, and has Jbeen 
a source of error to all who have adopted it. Our emotions 
and feelings, though closely connected with the will, are clearly 
not of a voluntary character. 

Among our sentient feelings may be classed, in the first place, 
the appetites, such as hunger, thirst, etc. These are feelings in 
the mind, occasioned by particular states of the body. We are 
not directly voluntary in them, though we are capable of restrain- 
ing and controlling them. They constitute powerful motives to 
action, but are not, in themselves, of a moral nature. 

Next to the appetites may be classed the natural affections, 
such as pity and parental love. These, like the appetites, are 
powerful motives to action, and require to be regulated and con- 
trolled ; but they are not of the nature of moral action, and in 
themselves possess no moral character. 

There is also a class of feelings sometimes called muscular : 
and a still larger class, which are closely connected with the ner- 
vous system. These nervous affections not unfrequently assume 
a religious aspect ; and under the influence of them, persons are 
led either to rejoice in hope, or tremble with apprehension, or 
sink in the blackness of despair. Still, there may be nothing 
in them of a truly religious nature, and they are not to be 
depended on as affording decisive evidence of character, one 
way or the other. 

Among the sentient feelings may be classed the various enio- 

36 



282 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

tions and passions ; such as surprise, astonishment, wonder; 
the emotions of beauty, grandeur, and sublimity; sorrow,' joy, 
grief, fear, and also anger. These are all feelings in the mind, 
awakened by the presence of appropriate ideas or objects. 
• We also include among the sentient feelings a class of instinct- 
ive desires and aversions, such as the universal desire of knowl- 
edge and of happiness, and aversion to misery. A portion of 
our desires and aversions belong to the voluntary part of man ; 
but this is not the case with those to which I have referred. 
They are manifestly instinctive and sentient. 

There is also the feeling of moral approbation and of obliga- 
tion ; the feeling of satisfaction in doing right, and of remorse 
when we do wrong. These feelings belong to the conscience ; 
and a question arises, on which it will be necessary to pause a 
moment, — What is conscience? Is it a simple faculty, or does 
it involve a complex mental operation? Does it belong to the 
intellect, or to the sensibilities, or to both? 

In popular language, it may be well to speak of conscience as 
a distinct faculty ; but .in reality it is not so. It involves a 
complex mental operation. It is to be referred to two distinct 
departments of the mind. One part of the office of what is 
popularly called conscience is intellectual. It is a perception, a 
judgment, as to the moral quality, the fitness or unfitness, the 
right or the wrong of actions. Another part of the office of 
conscience belongs, obviously, to the sensibilities. It is a feel- 
ing, — a feeling of obligation to do whatever is perceived to be 
right ; a feeling of approbation or remorse, according as we have 
done right or wrong. 

In speaking of conscience, we sometimes refer to the one part 
of it, and sometimes to the other. The phrases, enlightened 
conscience, and misguided conscience, have reference to it as 
intellectual ; while the expressions, a seared conscience, a tender 
conscience, refer to the sensibilities. 

We sometimes see these different parts of conscience existing 
in very different degrees of perfection. We see a conscience 
that is enlightened-, but not tender ; or a conscience that is 
tender and quick to feel, but not greatly enlightened. 

These different parts of conscience require, also, very different 



THE HTDIA2* MDsD. 283 

kinds of cultivation. The intellectual conscience, like every- 
thing else pertaining to the intellect, requires to be instructed 
and enlightened. The sentient conscience requires to be cher- 
ished, yielded to, and habitually obeyed. To resist it, and do 
violence to it, is to sear and stupefy it. 

The emotional, the sentient region of mind may be regarded 
as lying between the intellect and will, and as sustaining 
important relations to both. In approaching our fellow-men 
with a view to exert an influence upon them, we first address 
ourselves to their intellectual nature. ~We address them through 
the senses, and convey ideas to their minds. If these ideas or 
thoughts ar.e of an interesting character, they will awaken emo- 
tion, feeling of some kind, and thus bring us in contact with the 
sensibilities. The process of influence may stop here. It may 
not be of a nature to proceed further. But if the ideas imparted 
are of a nature to excite the will, the process of influence will 
not stop. The awakened emotions, in connection with the ideas 
or objects which have awakened them, will operate as motives 
to the will, and voluntary action will be the result. 

Such is the natural and direct process of moral influence ; — 
ty means of the intellect, through the sensibilities, upon the 
will. It is not likely that the intellect ever exerts any influence 
upon the will, except through the medium of the sensibilities ; 
so that, as Professor Upham says : " Strike out the sensibilities, 
and you excavate a gulf of separation between the intellect and 
will, which is forever impassable." 

But though the direct process of moral influence is such as 
has been described, this is not the only influence of which we 
are the subjects. While the direct process of influence is going 
on, a reflex influence is often exerted in precisely the opposite 
direction. The sensibilities affect the intellect as well as the 
intellect the sensibilities, and while the will is influenced by 
both, it sends back a reflex influence upon both. Every one 
knows how much his thoughts and feelings are under the con- 
trol of his will, and how ready men are to believe what they 
wish to believe. 

This whole sentient region of mind is worthy of deep atten- 
tion and study, and that for two reasons. 



284 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

1.' It has a most intimate connection with the subject of 
motives. God governs the moral world by motives. Physical 
force is out of the question here. Men are not moved about, 
like inert masses, or lifeless machines, but appropriate motives 
are presented, in view of which the will is gained. 

The motives which influence the will are of two kinds, external 
and internal, or, more properly, intellectual and sentient. The 
former class includes all such external objects and events, such 
truths and considerations, as have a tendency to influence the 
will. The latter class all lie in the sentient region of the mind, 
and include the feelings generally. And what gives the more 
importance to this latter class of motives is, that it is only 
through them, as I have said, that the intellectual motives oper- 
ate. The intellectual or external motives move the sensibilities, 
and through them move the will ; and never otherwise. It is 
on this account that the same external motives operate so differ- 
ently upon different persons. The state of the feelings, of the 
internal motives, is different. It is on this account that de- 
praved and vicious men often act so strangely; resisting what 
are intrinsically, and ought to be, the strongest external motives, 
and falling before temptations which ought not to have with 
them the slightest influence. External motives do not reach 
the will, except through the sensibilities ; and the appetites, the 
passions, the deranged and depraved sensibilities of the persons 
in question are in such a state that none but base and unworthy 
motives can influence them at all. 

2. The sensibilities are worthy of attention and study on 
account of their connection with the religious experience and 
character. In consequence of ignorance and error on this point, 
Christians often mistake their real characters. Sometimes they 
give themselves credit for more religion than they have, and 
sometimes for less. They have joys and ecstasies, or anxieties 
and depressions, on which they lay much stress one way or the 
other, which are chiefly sentient, and on which very little de- 
pendence can be placed. 

Sinners, too, often deceive themselves in the same way. They 
build their hopes upon a religion which is purely sentient, and 



THE HUMAN MIND. 285 

which, like the morning cloud, or summer brook, soon passes 
away. 

But I cannot dwell upon this subject further. I here dismiss 
the sensibilities, and shall proceed, in my next Lecture, to 
speak of the fourth great department of mind, the voluntary — 
the will. 



286 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUKE XXY. 

THE WILL. 

We come now to treat of the fourth great department of the 
human mind, — the will. The will, obviously, is a distinct fac- 
ulty of mind ; and so it has been considered by nearly all who 
have written on the subject. Its operations are-simple, uncom- 
pounded, and clearly distinguishable from those of every other 
power. A volition, a preference, a choice, an exercise of will, 
is not a thought, an idea, a perception, or conception. Neither 
is it an emotion, a passion, a mere feeling of any kind. It is 
clearly a mental operation by itself, and marks the will as a 
distinct power or faculty of the soul. 

And not only is the will a distinct faculty of mind, it is also 
a very important faculty. This will be evident from two con- 
siderations. First, the will is the great moving, acting power 
of the soul. And secondly, it lies at the foundation of moral 
character. Without the will, we might perceive different objects ; 
we might feel in view of them ; but we could never obey or 
disobey any divine command. We could never do anything, 
good or evil. 

The exercises of the will have been considered under two 
classes : the executive or imperative, and the internal. The former 
class are those which stand directly connected with overt actions, 
— the movement of the tongue, the hand, or some of the bodily 
members. The latter class includes all those voluntary exer- 
cises which do not appear directly in overt action. But this 
classification, though it may be complete, covering the whole 
ground of the subject, is not sufficiently definite for our present 
purpose. Our internal exercises of will, instead of being classed 
together, as above, may more properly be considered under 



THE WILL. 287 

several divisions* In speaking of the different classes of our 
voluntary exercises, however, it must be kept in mind, that 
though specifically different, they are generically similar, and 
are all to be referred to the same great faculty, the will. 

The first class of voluntary exercises, and by far the most 
numerous class, consists of our simple choices or volitions ^ 
the same as those above referred to under the name of executive 
or imperative exercises. They stand immediately connected, as 
I said, with overt action, — the movement of some of the volun- 
tary muscles. The nature of the connection between these 
motions of the will and the corresponding motions of the body, 
is indeed inscrutable to us. We may say that the muscle moves 
the limb, and the nerve excites the muscle, and the will the 
nerve. But hoiq does the will excite the nerve? How does the 
immaterial act on the material? Who can tell? . The fact of 
this connection is certain ; but the manner of it is past our 
finding out. 

That our simple choices, or executive volitions, are immensely 
numerous, there can be no doubt. Every word we speak, every 
limb we move, every external action we perform, implies a 
previous volition or choice. We will to raise the hand, and 
it rises. We will to open our lips and speak, and it is done. 
And so of every other voluntary movement of the body. These 
simple choices are rapid in their succession, and short in their 
duration. Each fixes upon something requiring immediately to 
be done ; and with the doing of it, or the attempt to do it, the 
volition passes away, to be succeeded by others. 

Our internal voluntary exercises are chiefly of a more perma- 
nent character. When .put forth, they remain upon the mind, 
often, for a considerable time. The mind is permanently influ- 
enced by them, and, so long as they are retained, receives a 
character from them. These internal exercises may be divided 
into several classes. 

The first class I shall notice are our purposes. A purpose 
embraces a plan or course of conduct, more or less general, and 
requires often a vast number of simple choices to carry it into 
effect. An individual purposes to go a journey. He forms the 
purpose deliberately and of choice. He is as voluntary in it as 



288 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

he can be in anything; and the purpose, the plan itself, is one. 
But how many steps must be taken, and how many simple 
choices, or executive volitions, must be put forth, in order to 
bring him to his journey's end? 

Our purposes are often so general as to include under them, 
not only a multitude of simple choices, but several distinct sub- 
ordinate purposes. For example : a young man forms the pur- 
pose to become a preacher of the gospel, and to pursue a course 
of study preparatory to that important work. But as he revolves 
the subject, he perceives that a great many subordinate purposes 
must be formed, in order to carry this greater and more general 
one into effect. He must go to school here or there. He must 
enter this or that college, and this or that seminary, and must 
resort to various plans and labors, in order to procure the means 
of support. . Yery likely, in the course of his preparatory studies, 
he repeatedly changes some of these subordinate plans, while 
the more general purpose to qualify himself to become a 
preacher of the gospel remains the same. 

Another class of our internal voluntary exercises consists of 
our resolutions. A resolution does not differ materially from a 
purpose, except that it does not often reach so far, and is more 
peremptorily fixed and expressed. It is a fixed determination 
to do some particular thing, or to attempt the doing of it, at 
some future time. Thus I resolve to perform some particular 
act to-morrow, and something else the next week, and some- 
thing else the next }^ear. These resolutions are deliberately 
formed, — formed in view of motives, and are exercises of the 
will. Still, they differ materially from those executive choices 
by which they are carried into effect. 

A third class of our voluntary exercises consists of our inten- 
tions or motives; using the word motive in the voluntary sense. 1 
An intention or motive (in this sense of the word motive) is a 
choice, a purpose, to bring about a particular end, by means of 
some overt act or actions. Thus, we frequently ask, when we 
see an outward act performed, " What was the motive of him 

1 There are three classes of motives, as the word is used : the intellectual and the 
sentient, which have been explained, and also the voluntary. The voluntary motive 
is synonymous with intention. It does not, like the other two classes, move the will, 
but is an internal exercise of the will moving to outward .action. 



THE WILL. 289 

who performed it? "What was his intention?" That we are 
voluntary in our intentions is evident from the nature of them. 
They partake of the nature of a purpose or choice. The same 
is further evident, since to the intention, and to this alone, at- 
taches the entire moral character of the external action growing 
out of it. "What is the overt act, the mere motion or motions 
of the body, when separated from the intention from which the 
action sprung? " Joab said to Amasa, Art thou in health, my 
brother? And Joab took Amasa by the beard to kiss him." 
How seemingly kind and affectionate was all this ! Yet Joab's 
intention was to murder Amasa, — which bloody intent he car- 
ried into effect (2 Sam. xx. 9, 10). 

Still another class of our voluntary exercises consists of our 
desires or wishes* The term desire is an ambiguous one, being 
sometimes used to denote feelings which are merely sentient. 
Thus the appetites and the natural affections are not unfrequently 
called desires. There are also universal, instinctive desires; as 
the desire of knowledge and the desire of happiness. But that 
in the larger part of those exercises which are commonly called 
desires or ivishes, we are voluntary, there can be no doubt. The 
thief deems it possible to obtain a sum of money by stealth ; he 
earnestly desires to obtain it; he resolves that, if possible, he 
will obtain it ; and he enters on a course of measures accord- 
ingly. Now it would be difficult to show that the thief was not 
as voluntary and as criminal, in his desires, as in his subsequent 
resolutions and endeavors. Indeed, may not the foundation of 
all his guilt be traced to the indulgence of these guilty desires ? 
David Brainerd conceived it possible, by much sacrifice and toil, 
to bring the American Indians, or a portion of them, to a knowl- 
edge of the truth. He earnestly desired the accomplishment 
of this object ; he resolved that he would attempt its' accom- 
plishment; he formed his plans, and entered on a course of 
measures accordingly. Now was there nothing morally excel- 
lent and holy in these benevolent desires of Brainerd ? And 
was he not as voluntary in them, as in those resolves and efforts 
by means of which his desires were accomplished ? 

Our desires, in the sense in which we here use the term, are 
in reality choices, preferences, and differ from our simple choices, 

37 



290 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

chiefly, in respect to their objects. Their objects are not imme- 
diately attainable. If they were so, the desires would become 
simple volitions, fastening upon the chosen objects, aud securing 
them at once. But as these objects are not immediately attain- 
able, what would otherwise be volitions assume the form of 
abiding wishes or desires, to secure the objects in question as 
soon as practicable. Wrong desire, in the voluntary sense of 
the term, is precisely what is forbidden in the tenth command- 
ment. 

Doubtless there are other voluntary exercises, which come not 
under either of the classes that have been mentioned. Such are 
those religious exercises which are made the subject of direct 
command in the Scriptures. Some of these are purely volun- 
tary ; others are but partially so. But into all, the voluntary 
element more or less, enters. All are, to a greater or less 
extent, under the control of the will. Among those religious 
exercises which are purely voluntary, are submission to God; 
a choosing of God for our portion ; a consecrating of ourselves 
to his service ; a willingness to be in his hands, and at his dis- 
posal forever. Exercises such as these are, perhaps, purely 
voluntary. They are clearly exercises of the will. 

Other enjoined religious exercises are complex in their char- 
acter, aud require to be examined with a closer scrutiny. Thus 
faith, in the larger sense of the term, includes an intellectual 
perception and reception of some truth, together with a volun- 
tary surrender of the soul to its influence ; or, which is the 
same, a feeling, living, and acting as though it were true. 
Also repentance, in the fullest acceptation of the term, is a 
complex affection, implying conviction of sin, which is chiefly 
intellectual ; sorrow for sin, which is sentient ; and a turning 
away from sin, which is voluntary. In a more restricted sense, 
the voluntary part of repentance, the turning from sin, may be 
said to include the whole of it. The Apostle Paul uses the term 
in this sense, when he says : "Godly sorrow ivorketh repentance 
unto salvation." 

Love, considered as a religious affection, is used in three 
senses. There is the love of benevolence, the love of compla- 
cence, and the love of gratitude. The first of these kinds of 



THE WILL. 291 

love — a wishing well to all beings— r is chiefly, if not wholly, 
voluntary. The love of complacence is complex ; involving not 
only benevolence towards its object, but a feeling of delight in 
that object. The love of gratitude is still more complex ; in- 
volving not only benevolence towards its object, and a feeling 
of delight in it (i. e. if it is a worthy object) , but also a feeling 
of obligation, and a desire to make some returns. It will be 
seen, that into all these forms of love the voluntary principle 
enters. Were it not so, — were the affections purely sentient, — 
there would be no more holiness in them than there is in the 
fondness of animals for their young, or the attachment of the 
turtle to his mate. 

We are commanded to "rejoice in the Lord, always." We 
are also to "rejoice with those that rejoice, and to weep with 
those that weep." The feelings here enjoined are chiefly sen- 
tient ; and yet the sensibilities are so much a matter of cultiva- 
tion, and in so many ways subject to the direction and control 
of the will, that the injunctions are to be regarded as entirely 
proper. 

Indeed, we are to regard all those affections which are made 
the subjects of command or prohibition in the Scriptures, as par- 
taking more or less of a voluntary character. They are not all 
purely voluntary, as we have seen ; but the voluntary element 
enters more or less into them. They are directly or indirectly 
under the influence and control of the will. Can we conceive 
that God should enjoin anything upon his creatures, in which 
they were not, in some sense, voluntary ; or that he should 
command them to put forth exercises over which they had no 
active control? He may command us, and he does, to cultivate 
our understandings, to control our thoughts, and- to form our 
opinions in accordance with his truth; because in all this, the 
will is more or less concerned. But so far as the understanding 
is beyond the reach of the will, we find no injunctions laid upon 
it. And the same remark may be extended to our sentient feel- 
ings. They are the subjects of command or prohibition, just so 
far as they are under the direction of the will, and no farther. 

In the foregoing remarks, I have spoken of the will as a dis- 
tinct and highly important faculty of the soul. I have attempted 



292 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

a classification and description of our voluntary exercises ; in 
doing which, I have been led to speak of many of our religious 
exercises, which partake more or less of a voluntary character. 

We come now to contemplate the will in another point of 
light; viz., its subjection to law. That this faculty of the soul, 
like all the rest, has its laws, might be inferred from analogy. 
If the laws of our mental constitution extend to the sensational, 
intellectual, and emotional parts of our nature, as they certainly 
do, why might we not expect that they would reach also to the 
will? Why should not this last great department of the soul 
need the direction, and feel the restraints of mental law, as 
much as either of the others ? 

That the human will is subject to law, is further evident from 
the daily conduct of men. The actions of men are not the 
sport of mere casualty, of chance. They result, ordinarily, 
from settled principles, and are characterized by a great degree 
of uniformity. It is on this account that we can calculate 
beforehand, with so much certainty, how men, in particular 
circumstances, will act. It is on this one fact — the subjection 
of the will to law — that political science, and indeed all science 
touching the future conduct of men, is based. 

But, without stopping further to establish the fact in question, 
I proceed, directly, to show what are some of the laws of the 
human will. 

1. The first I shall mention is that great law — extending to 
all created beings and things — of dependence upon God, and 
subjection to his providential control. Some have claimed a sort 
of independence for the human will, and have reasoned about it 
as though it were independent. But how is such a theory pos- 
sible? Is not the will of man, like everything else pertaining 
to^him, a creation of God? Did he not originally bestow it, 
with all the powers which it possesses? And does he not up- 
hold it every moment? Could it subsist or act at all, but by 
his sustaining, directing hand? God could no more impart 
independence to the human will, than he could self-existence, 
or a past eternal existence, — strict independence being one of 
his own incommunicable attributes. 

Besides, if the wills of men are out of the hands of God, then 



THE WILL. • 293 

how does he exercise that providential control over the moral 
world, which was ascribed to him in a previous Lecture? How 
does he fulfil his purposes, his predictions, his promises? How 
does he convert sinners, and sanctify believers, and hear and 
answer the prayers of his people ? And how are the hearts of 
men in the hand of the Lord, to turn them whithersoever he 
will? But the case is too plain for argument. There can be 
no doubt that the human will, like every other created thing, is 
dependent upon God, and subject to his providential control. 

2. The human will, like all other created things, is subject to 
the great law of cause and effect. While it is constantly oper- 
ating as a cause, it is itself an effect, and all its changes and 
exercises are effects. Some have insisted that our volitions are 
without cause. They hold this to be the distinction between 
passive motion and voluntary action, — that while the former 
is caused, the latter is uncaused. But if our volitions are. 
uncaused, then they are either self-existent and eternal, or they 
are mere casualties, accidents, without any rule or law, beyond 
control, and not to be accounted for on any principles whatever, 
— both which suppositions we know to be unfounded. 

There are two. points of difference between voluntary action 
and passive motion, without reverting to the strange supposition 
that the former has no cause at all. In the first place, our vol- 
untary exercises are the motions of a will, — a power inherently 
active, — a power altogether sui generis; whereas, passive 
motion is the movement of something besides a will. Then, 
secondly, these actions of the will are caused, as nothing else is, 
by reasons, motives, moral considerations, and not by the appli- 
cation of physical force. Physical force could never move a 
will, nor can moral considerations move anything else. We 
might as well think to move a house by moral means, as to 
move a free, active, responsible will, by the application of 
force. 

The causes of our voluntary exercises are appropriately called 
motives; and, as remarked in my last Lecture, they are of two 
kinds, — the external, intellectual, or objective; and the internal, 
the sentient, or subjective. External motives comprise the whole 
range of ideas and objects, — everything in the understanding 



294 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

which is of a nature to excite the sensibilities, and through them 
the will. Sentient motives include all those feelings which go 
to more and influence the will. As remarked before, the former 
class of motives seems never to reach the will but through the 
latter. The external motive being modified by the internal, 
they come down upon the will with a united influence. 

3. With these preliminaries, I come to another law of the 
will, — which, indeed, is not another, but only a different ex- 
pression of the last; viz., that every exercise of the ivill must 
have a motive. To suppose the contrary would be absurd and 
impossible. Unless we can conceive, of a choice, without any- 
thing chosen, or any reason or inducement for its being chosen, 
we cannot so much as conceive of an exercise of the will without 
a motive. Such a phenomenon would be more than a miracle ; 
it would be a natural impossibility. Every exercise of will 
must necessarily have some object on which it terminates, and 
some reason or inducement under the influence of which it is 
put forth. In other words, it must have a motive. 

4. A fourth law of the will, and one which will require a 
more full consideration, is, that the will is alicays as the strong* 
est motive. We do not mean by this, that the will always }delds 
to that external, objective motive which is intrinsically the 
strongest, and which ought to have the greatest weight ; for this 
would imply that men always act right, and do their duty. But 
a variety of causes may contribute to present the worse as the 
better reason, and make that motive, for the time, appear the 
strongest which is not so in reality. The state of the sensibili- 
ties, too, may be such, that an external motive which, intrinsi- 
cally, is very weak, and ought to be spurned at as of no account, 
may excite interest, awaken feeling, and ultimately carry away 
the will. The law on this subject is, that the will is always as 
the predominant motive, — as that which, at the time, appears 
the strongest, or which strikes the mind with the greatest force. 

In one respect, however, this law of the will is unlike the 
last. To suppose an exercise of will without any motive, in- 
volves, as I said, a natural impossibility. But to suppose the 
will to yield to the weaker motive against the stronger, involves 
no natural impossibility. It is what may be done. It is what, 



THE WILL. 295 

in innumerable instances, — in every case of actual sinning, — 
ought to be done. And yet we suppose it never is done. 
Whether we do right or wrong, we freely, actively follow the 
lead of those motives which, at the time, are to us the strongest, 
or which strike the mind with the greatest force. 

In proof of this, I appeal first of all to consciousness. In all 
our actions we are conscious of being influenced by motives, 
and that the degree of influence is in proportion to the strength 
of motives. A certain amount of motive will lead us to think 
of a proposed measure, or course of action. Additional motives 
will lead us to think of it seriously. A still farther increase of 
motives may lead us to adopt it. 

We are sometimes in situations where the motives before us 
are so nearly equal, that we hesitate, and are in doubt what 
course to pursue. And we all know how a slight inducement, 
coming up on one side or the other, at such times, will be suffi- 
cient to turn the scale. Now we are not to infer, from facts and 
illustrations such as these, that we. are machines, turned about 
mechanically by weights and pulleys ; but that we are moral 
beings, influenced by reasons or motives, and that we are pro- 
portionally more influenced by those motives which are to us 
strong and impelling, than by those which strike us with less 
power. 

That the will is always as the strongest motive, and that 
mankind universally are convinced of this, is evident from the 
manner in which they attempt to influence and direct the actions 
one of another. This is done invariably by the presentation of 
motives ; and their hope of success (other things being equal) 
is always in proportion to the strength of motives which they 
are able to exhibit. Thus a parent, wishing to direct the actions 
of a reluctant child into a particular channel, sets before it the 
reasonableness of the thing proposed. If this is not sufficient, 
he shows the child how much is to be gained by acquiescence. 
If the child still refuses, the parent appeals to its sense of obli- 
gation, and urges this as a motive to obedience. And if noth- 
ing else will suffice, he .threatens to inflict deserved punishment. 
In this instance, we see the parent proceeding in a regular 
course, from motive to motive, till at length the will of the child 



296 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

is gained. And the parent need be no philosopher, in order to 
understand and accomplish this, and to do it effectually. 

The whole system of rewards and punishments, both in human 
governments and the divine, is in accordance with the doctrine 
here advocated. On any other principle, why should a rich re- 
ward and a severe punishment have greater influence than those 
of a trifling nature ? Why does the magistrate offer a reward 
of thousands, rather than of tens, for the apprehension of the 
murderer? And why is murder punishable with death, rather 
than with bonds ? 

It is because men act regularly from the strongest motive, 
that we are able to predict, with so much assurance, how, in 
particular circumstances, they will act. The farmer presumes 
with as much certainty that the best grain, at the lowest price, 
will meet with the most purchasers, as that the sun will shine 
to warm and fertilize his fields. And he reckons upon the labor 
of individuals in his employ (especially if he has tried them, 
and knows their characters) with as much confidence as he does, 
upon the utensils they employ in the execution of their work. 
Still, such individuals move not by compulsion or constraint. 
They act freely and voluntarily in yielding to the influence of 
motives, and fulfilling the expectations of their employer. 

We always expect our fellow-men to act from the stronger 
motive; and when we see them appearing to act otherwise, we 
conclude, either that they have motives of which we are igno- 
rant, or that they are insane, and of course not responsible. 
So, in all probability, the Egyptians judged of Moses, when he 
chose to suffer affliction with the people of God rather than 
enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. So the Jewish rulers 
judged of Paul, when he forsook their company, and joined the 
followers of the crucified Nazarene. And so the world judge 
of the most disinterested and engaged Christians now. They 
know not how to appreciate the real motives of such Christians, 
and they sometimes think them literally deranged, acting either 
from no motive, or from the weaker in opposition to the stronger ; 
and sometimes, that they have motives which are not- avowed, 
such as worldly gain, ambition, or a desire of applause. 

We may regard it, then, as a law of our moral nature that 



THE WILL. 297 

— with the explanations and limitations above given, — the will 
is always as the strongest motive. It yields to that motive 
which at the time appears the strongest, or which strikes the 
mind with the greatest force. 

I know it has been said that the law-, thus interpreted, 
amounts to nothing. It ends in the truism, that the will always 
is as it is, or that it yields to the motives to which it does yield. 
But, with due deference to high authorities, we mustf insist that 
the law means much more than this. There is an inherent dif- 
ference in the strength of motives, both external and internal. 
Two dollars a day is a much stronger motive to the hired laborer 
than one. Two dollars a bushel is a much stronger inducement 
to the farmer to part with his grain, than one. And so of the 
sentient motives, — appetites, impulses, instinctive feelings, and 
desires, — some are much more powerful than others. Now the 
law is, not that the will yields to those motives to which it does 
yield, but that it follows the motives which, in the existing 
state of the individual mind, appear to it the strongest, which 
make the strongest impression upon it, or which strike it with 
the greatest force. 

5. I mention but another law of the will. It is one which 
attaches to the very nature of the will, and without which there 
would be no will left. Whenever the will, or the agent, decides 
upon a particular course, he is conscious of what has been 
termed the natural ability to decide differently. Men do as 
they do, in yielding to the stronger motive, not from a natural 
necessity or from compulsion, but of their own free choice. 
They know that they are naturally able to do differently. In 
many cases, they feel that they ought to do differently. And 
yet, with the full consent of their hearts, they follow the lead 
of those motives which, at the time, are to them the strongest. 

Perhaps some may think that we here set up the Arminian 
doctrine of the poiver of contrary choice. But this is a mistake. 
The power of contrary choice, in the sense in which some 
writers use the phrase, is not the abstract natural power to do 
differently from what we do, — a power which all men are con- 
scious of possessing, — but a power of acting from the weaker 
motive against the stronger, which is frequently exercised, and 

38 



29£ CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

which may be exercised in spite of all that God can do to prevent 
it. It is an ignoring and contradicting of our fourth great law 
of the will. It is virtually taking the will out of the hands of 
God, and giving to it a sort of independent sovereignty. A 
power of contrary choice such as this, constitutes no part of our 
philosophy or theology ; while the abstract natural power to do 
differently from what we do, seems to us to belong to the very 
nature of the will, and is to all men a matter of consciousness. 

It will be said, no doubt, that the view we have taken of the 
subject in hand — this subjecting of the will to law, and placing 
it in the hands and under the providential control of the Su- 
preme Being — is quite inconsistent with its freedom. If what 
has been said is true, moral freedom is gone forever. This 
objection will be considered in the following Lecture. 



THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 299 



LECTUKE XXYI. 

THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 

In my last. iTecture I spoke of the will as a distinct and highly 
important faculty of the soul; attempted a classification and 
description of its various exercises ; and considered some of the 
laws to which it is subject. I am now to treat of the freedom 
of the will. I shall endeavor to show how much is implied in 
it, and in what it consists. 

The question before us, it will be remembered, is not that 
which was long agitated in the Christian world respecting what 
was called the bondage of the will. Augustine, Luther, and 
Calvin denied free-will, and advanced what they called the 
bondage of the will. They did not, however, deny a proper 
free-agency, or teach anything which they deemed inconsistent 
with it. The bondage of the will, for which they contended, 
was no other than that "bondage of corruption," spoken of by 
the Apostle Paul (Rom. viii. 21). And the free-will which they 
denied, and which their opponents advocated, was the opposite 
of this. In short, the question was one about the natural and 
entire depravity of the human heart ; — a question resembling 
that on which we are to enter, in little else besides the terms. 

It must be further remembered that the liberty about which 
we are to inquire is internal liberty, — the liberty of choice, and 
not a liberty of external action. We have liberty of external 
action, when there is no external hindrance or impediment to 
the execution of our wishes ; when we can do as we choose, 
without compulsion or restraint. Internal liberty, or liberty of 
choice, is quite another matter. 

It would be needless to examine all the theories which have 
been proposed in regard to this internal liberty, or all the 



300 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. * 

Christian doctrines which have been denounced, as being in- 
consistent with it. It may be well, however, to notice some of 
them. 

1. It has been said, that the doctrine of natural depravity, or 
that there is, in the natural heart of man, a strong bias or incli- 
nation to evil, is inconsistent with human freedom. "If men 
are to be free, there must be no such bias or proneness to evil ; 
there, must be no strong controlling motives either way ; the 
mind must be left in a state of indifferency." But who is not 
conscious, in his own experience, that this representation is not 
true? Who does not know that he acts as freely, and is alto- 
gether as responsible, when under the influence of motives so 
strong that they leave no room' for hesitation, as when under the 
influence of weaker motives, or as when the mind is balancing 
between opposite courses, and hardly knows which of them to 
pursue ? The' Apostle Paul was strongly inclined to preach the 
gospel to the Gentiles, — so strongly, that a sort of necessity 
was laid upon him, and he said, " Woe is me, if I preach not 
the gospel ! " But was not Paul possessed of moral freedom 
while pursuing his missionary labors? Alexander the Great 
was under the influence of strong, impelling motives, in his en- 
deavors to conquer and enslave the world. But was he not free 
in those endeavors ?' And will he not be held responsible to God, 
and to posterity, for all the sufferings and murders of which he 
was the guilty occasion ? The blessed angels are under the in- 
fluence of a strong, natural bias or propensity to hold fast their 
integrity, and persevere in holiness. Still, are they not free? 
Fallen angels have a propensity to sin, of the strength of which, 
perhaps not even fallen men can form any adequate conception. 
Still, are they not free? A state of perfect indifference, so far 
from being essential to moral freedom, seems to forbid the exer- 
cise of the will at all. How can a person prefer one thing before 
another, while he does not prefer it ; or put forth an act of 
choice, while his mind is in a state of perfect indifferency? 

2. It has been said, to the thousandth time, that the doctrines 
of God's universal purposes and foreknowledge are inconsistent 
with human freedom. "If our actions are to be free, there must 
be no foreknowledge, foreordination, or previous certainty in 



THE FKEEDOM OF THE WILL. 301 

regard to them. They must be left contingent. Contingency 
of action is essential to free agency ; and what is contingent can- 
not be previously certain or foreknown." But however plausible 
this statement may appear in words, a moment's reflection will 
satisfy us that it has no foundation in truth. It is contradicted, 
in the first place, by every day's experience and observation. 
Knowing, as we do, the influence of motives, and the laws of 
our various mental operations, how often are we able to predict, 
with almost entire certainty, how, in. particular circumstances, 
men will act. Yet we see them acting with as much freedom, 
as though there was no previous certainty or expectation in the 
case. For example, I have no more doubt (unless some physical 
obstruction shall intervene) thaV the Western mail will arrive in 
the city this evening than I have that it will be dark at midnight ; 
and yet the postmasters, the carriers, and all concerned in its 
transportation, will act freely. I have no more doubt that those 
of our citizens who are not physically disabled, will go to their 
breakfasts to-morrow morning, than I have that the sun will rise 
in his season ; and yet no one will be dragged to the table by 
an invincible fate, but all will go with the utmost freedom. If 
we could in no case be certain as to the future conduct of our 
fellow-men, then we could have no settled confidence one in 
another ; for what is such confidence but an assurance that indi- 
viduals, on whom we depend, will perform certain specified 
actions. But is.it so, that the measure of confidence which 
prevails in society impairs the moral freedom of men, and that, 
if confidence were general and perfect, it would destroy such 
freedom ? 

But we may look at the argument in a still more convincing 
light. Who, that is not an atheist, can seriously doubt, that 
God does " see the end from the beginning," and that " known 
unto him are all his works from the foundation of the world " ? 
Who can doubt that the Being, who has actually predicted so 
many distant future events, is perfectly acquainted with all such 
events, and could, if he pleased, infallibly predict them all? But 
if God knows all future actions and events, then it is certain, be- 
forehand, that they will take place, and of course nothing future 
is properly contingent. Still, do not men act freely? Do they 



302 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

not choose as they please, and do as they choose, and possess 
all that freedom that they can conceive of, or desire ; while in 
every instance they act, as it was certain to the view of God 
they would act, from all eternity? 

3. It has been often said, that if the will is governed by the 
strongest motive, then it cannot be free. But how is the will 
governed by the strongest motive ? This matter was sufficiently 
explained,, perhaps, in my last Lecture. Suffice it to say here, 
that motives, in no case, exert a physical, compulsory power 
over the will. This is not the mode of their operation ; nor 
could a will be moved at all by such a kind of influence, — more 
than a house or a rock could be moved by persuasion. The will 
is an inherently active power;' and in obeying the strongest 
motive, it freely, cordially, responsibly yields to it. It might 
decide differently ; but it prefers to decide as it does. In short, 
to yield to the strongest motive, is to do as one pleases; for 
pleasure, as the term is here used, is but another name for the 
strongest motive, or for what Edwards calls " the greatest 
apparent good." Hence, if it is not inconsistent with freedom 
for men to do just as they please, then they are free in yielding 
to the strongest motive, or to that motive which, at the time, is 
the strongest to them. 

4. It has been said, again, that the doctrine of God's controll- 
ing providence over the moral world is inconsistent with human 
freedom. " The will must act independently, in order to be 
free. It must, at least, originate its own volitions. To place 
it in the hands and under the control of God, is to destroy it as 
an active, responsible power." This objection has been before 
considered ; but it may be well to look at it in another light. 
The will, it is said, must originate its own volitions. But how 
is this done, but by a previous volition ; which, for the same 
reason, must have one previous to that ; and so on ad infinitum, 
— involving the absurdity of a volition before the first ? 

When a voluntary exercise arises in our minds, there is a 
change in our minds ; and this change, like every other, must 
have a cause. And now if we may not look without the will for 
the cause, if it must be sought in the will itself, what cause can 
be assigned, except that we chose because we would choose ; 



THE FKEEDOM OF THE WILL. 303 

we, acted because we preferred to act ; we put forth an exercise 
of will because we willed to put it forth. Here, then, is an 
exercise of will originated by a previous exercise of will. And 
this previous exercise of will, according to the theory, must be 
originated in the same way, which runs us into the absurdity 
above noticed. 

Or, if we look at the subject in another view, we have the 
same absurdity as before. If we originate our own exercises of 
will, it would seem we must do it either voluntarily or involun- 
tarily. If we do it involuntarily, there is nothing gained, surely, 
on the score of freedom. There can be no freedom in an origi- 
nating impulse of this kind, more than there is in the beating 
of the heart, or in the process of digestion. But if we originate 
our own exercises of will voluntarily , this is the same as saying 
that we originate one voluntary exercise by another, — the iden- 
tical absurdity before exposed. 

In proof of the self-originating power of the will, an appeal 
has sometimes been made to consciousness. We are all con- 
scious, it is said, of possessing and exercising this power. We 
are conscious, certainly, of putting forth exercises of will, or of 
choosing and refusing, in view of motives, and under their influ- 
ence. But does our consciousness extend any farther than this? 
Is any one conscious of choosing to choose, of willing to will, of 
originating one act of will by another? If so, I can only, say 
that his consciousness reaches farther than mine. 

It has been objected that the above argument against the self- 
originating power of the will, if it proves anything, proves too 
much. It proves that "no cause can act, but by first acting to 
produce that act," — the absurdity of which would render all 
causation impossible. But I see not the force of this objection. 
The argument under consideration (which is that of Edwards) 
does not assume that no cause can act, or exert a causal influ- 
ence, but by first acting to produce that act ; but only that the 
human will cannot originate a volition, or do anything else, 
without Willing. We say nothing here about natural , physical 
causes. But how a will can originate a volition, without willing 
to do it, is to me inconceivable. And if every act of the will 



304 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

must be originated by a previous act, then the absurdity jof 
Edwards is fully inaugurated. 

An attempt has been made to discredit this argument by 
giving it a bad name, — "the dictum necessitatis ." But here is 
no dictum necessitatis at all. There is nothing in it, or about 
it, which is inconsistent with the entirest freedom. Men may 
choose as they please, and do as they choose, without a self- 
originating power of the will, — without creating one exercise 
of will by another. 

We have how examined several Christian truths, which have 
been thought to conflict with freedom of will, and have found 
that they have really no bearing on the subject. These truths 
may remain, and will remain ; and yet men may possess all that 
freedom which they can conceive of or desire. 

The question, then, returns upon us : What is implied in 
freedom of the will ? In what does this attribute of our nature 
consist? Let us separate these questions, and show, first, what 
is implied in freedom of the will. This freedom implies (and 
that is about all we can say on the subject) the normal, health- 
ful possession of all those faculties which are essential to moral 
agency ; — more especially those of conscience and will. In 
other words, it implies a proper natural ability to choose and 
act as the subject pleases. 

In answer to the second question, we say, that moral freedom 
consists in exercising the will one way, while conscious of the 
power to exercise it in some other way ; or in preferring, choos- 
ing some one thing, while conscious of entire natural ability to 
choose some other thing. In other words, it consists in volun- 
tarily yielding to the strongest motives, or in doing as ive please 
while conscious that we could do differently. This is freedom. 
It is all the freedom that we need, or of which we can conceive ; 
and this always exists where there are the human faculties, and 
more especially the faculty of will. 

We resolve freedom, therefore, into the very nature of the 
will itself. Who ever saw, or heard, or can conceive, of a will 
not free ? As well might we conceive of a ball that was not 
round, or a cube that was not square. Take roundness away 
from a ball, and it would not be a ball. Take squareness away 



THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 305 

from a cube, and it would not be a cube. So take freedom, 
voluntariness, and consequent- responsibility away from a will, 
and it would no longer be a will. It would be something else, 
— we know not what. 

The question, therefore, so long mooted, whether the human 
will is free, is really no question at all. If man has a will, 
of course it is a free will ; and if he has it in regular connection 
with the other -human faculties, he is a free, moral, responsible 
agent. 

The questions, too, whether the foreknowledge"* of God, or 
the purposes of God, or the control which he exercises over the 
moral world, destroy or impair human freedom, resolve them- 
selves into this : Do all these things, or either -of them, destroy 
or impair the will? Do they take it clean away, or do they 
sensibly embarrass it in its operations ? If the human will is 
destroyed, why, then, freedom is gone. JSTo doubt of it. Or if 
the will is essentially impaired or embarrassed, freedom is pro- 
portionally diminished. But if neither of these things can be 
truly said, if the will of man remains entire, if it operates in 
connection with the purposes and providence of God, normally 
and naturally, in view of motives, and under their influence, 
then we need give ourselves no more trouble about freedom 
and responsibility. TTe are as free as creatures can be, and 
are justly responsible for our actions. 

In my last Lecture, I spoke of the necessity and the influence 
of motives,' showing that every exercise of will must have a 
motive ; and that, in the sense explained, the will is always as 
the strongest motive. The views there exhibited I deem of 
much importance to every minister of Christ, and indeed to 
every person who desires to exert an influence upon the con- 
duct of his fellow-men. If the will were not under the influ- 
ence of motives, and if the degree of influence exerted was not 
in proportion to the strength of the motives urged, then what 
-propriety in using motives with men to persuade them to do 
their duty, or to clo anything else, and in making these motives 
as impressive as possible? On this ground, poor preaching 
would be as likely to prevail as good preaching, and men would 
be as likely to be converted without preaching as with it. But 

39 



306 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

as mankind are constituted, ministers of the gospel have every 
encouragement for a skilful and powerful application of motives. 
There is just as much room for skill in adapting motives, and 
earnestness in enforcing them, as though everything depended 
on their instrumentality; as, indeed, under God, it. does. To 
be sure, God is the grand moving power in the moral world, as 
in the natural; but then he operates in both by means, and in 
accordance with established laws ; and this is one of the laws of 
mind, that the will is always as the strongest motive. 

Let, then,*' the minister of Christ adapt his motives wisely, 
and urge them efficiently, and make them as impressive as 
possible, and he will be proportionally the more likely to be 
successful ; not because he, by his eloquence, can convert or 
sanctify the soul, or because motives alone can do it, but be- 
cause God works by motives in turning the hearts of sinners 
to himself, and it is an established law of his operation, that 
the stronger the motive, the more likely to prevail. 



NATURAL AND MORAL ABILITY, NECESSITY, ETC. 307 



LECTUKE XXVII. 

NATURAL AND MORAL ABILITY, NECESSITY, ETC. 

The principal object of this Lecture will be to show, that there 
is a real and valid distinction between what is called natural 
and moral ability and inability, and to illustrate the nature and 
importance of this distinction. 

It is a mistake to suppose that this distinction originated with 
President Edwards and his followers, or that it is peculiar to 
New England. It is as old, for aught we know, as the creation ; 
as old, certainly, as the use of words and the construction of 
sentences by the human race. We find it in all languages, an- 
cient and modern. We find it in all books, and in reference to 
all subjects ; so that those who are inclined to repudiate it, find 
it impossible to succeed. The m dwdc/uat of the Greek, the non 
possum of the Latin, the ne puis pas of the French, and the 
little cannot of the English, are continually used in two differ- 
ent senses ; the one expressing what is called a moral, the other 
a natural inability ; the one a mere inability of disposition or 
will, the other an inability over which the will has no power. 
We ask a pious friend to lift for us a weight of five hundred 
pounds. He replies, "I cannot do it." We ask him to go with 
us to some , place of amusement on the Sabbath. He replies 
agaiu, "I cannot do it." In both cases, he pleads (and pleads 
properly, as terms are used) an inability. But who does not 
see that here are two kinds of inability? My friend has no 
natural power to lift the weight. He could not lift it, if he' 
would. He has the natural power to comply with the other 
request, and lacks only the willing, consenting mind. 

We ask a companion, who is with us in the fields, to leap to 
the top of a precipice; fifty feet high. He says, "I cannot." 



308 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

But having clambered to the top, we ask him to leap down. He 
says again, "I cannot." His answer is the same in both cases. 
He is unable either to leap up or to leap down. But, clearly, 
the inability in the two cases is not of the same nature. My 
friend could not leap up the precipice if he would ; but he 
might break his neck by leaping down, if he were so inclined. 

The distinction here illustrated is that between natural and 
moral ability and inability. It is a distinction, as we said, which 
runs through all languages and all books. It occurs continually 
in common conversation. Not one of us passes a single day, 
unless we pass it in utter solitude, without repeatedly using the 
words can and cannot in the two senses above indicated. 

"We sometimes find this distinction in connections where we 
should hardly have expected it. Thus the late Dr. Witherspoon, 
in replying to the sinner's plea of inability, says : " O that you 
would but consider what sort of inability you are under, to keep 
the commandments of God ! Is it natural, or is it moral? Is 
it a real want of ability, or is it only a want of will? Is it any- 
thing more than the depravity and corruption of your heart?" 
.The Princeton Eeviewers also say : " We readily admit that men 
have the natural faculties to obey God ; or, in other words, that 
they are moral agents. And this is often what is meant by nat- 
ural ability. We admit, also, that the inability of sinners is a 
moral inability ; inasmuch as it relates to moral subjects, arises 
from moral causes, and is removed by a moral change." 1 

The distinction we are considering shows itself very often in 
the Bible ; and that, too, in relation to a variety of subjects. 
In the following passages the inability spoken of is natural: 
" When Eli was laid down in his palace, and his eyes began to 
wax dim, that he could not see " (1 Sam. iii. 2) . " The magicians 
did so with their enchantments, to bring forth lice; but they 
could not" (Ex. viii. 18). The men in the ship with Jonah 
" rowed hard to bring it to the land ; but they could not " (Jon. 
i. 13). "I besought thy disciples to cast out the evil spirit, and 
they coidd not" (Luke ix. 40). 

In the Scriptures which follow, an entirely different kind of 
inability is spoken of: Joseph's brethren "hated him, and could 

i Witherspoon's Works, Vol. i. p. 215. Bib. Repertory, Vol. xiv. p.. 432. 



NATURAL AND MORAL ABILITY, NECESSITY, ETC. 309 

not speak peaceably unto him " (Gen. xxxvii. 4) . "How can that 
which is unsavory be eaten without salt?" (Job. vi. 6). "We 
cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" 
(Acts iv. 20). "I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot 
come" (Luke xiv. 20). In each of these cases there is no lack 
of capacity, of natural power. The inability is wholly of a 
moral nature, — the inability of will. 

The two kinds of ability here spoken of are so distinct, that 
they often exist separate from each other. Persons are naturally 
able to do what they are morally unable to do ; and again, they 
are morally able to do what they lack the natural ability to 
perform. ■ 

In establishing the fact of the distinction in question, we have 
indicated, to some extent, the nature and grounds of it. Natural 
ability has respect to the natural capacity or faculties of an indi- 
vidual. Moral ability has respect to the disposition, the concur- 
rent will, or, which is the same, to the predominant motive, with 
which the will always coincides. We have the natural ability 
to do whatever is within the reach of our natural faculties and 
powers, — those with which the God of nature has endowed us. 
We have the moral ability to do whatsoever, under the influence 
of the predominant motive, we are disposed or willing to do. 

Some writers, who admit the distinction between natural and 
moral ability, in respectrto outward actions, doubt whether it 
can be applied to our internal exercises and affections. We are 
morally able to perform an outward act, when we are disposed 
to perform it. But this disposition is itself an internal moral 
exercise, and when are we morally able to put forth that? Will 
it be said, "When we are disposed to put it forth?" But this 
implies a disposition before the first, which is absurd. 

The difficulty here arises from the ambiguities of that chame- 
leon word disposition, and from confounding the different senses 
in which it is used. This word occurs in common conversation, 
and in our discussions on moral subjects, in the three following 
senses! 1. There is the ulterior disposition, — a state of mind, 
and not an exercise ; a proclivity, preparation, or disposition 
(using the word in its most literal, etymological sense) for the 
performance of- an action. In this sense, the disposition may 



310 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

operate as a motive, but is not an exercise, and has not, in itself, 
any moral character. 2. There is the sentient disposition, — an 
emotion, a feeling, lying altogether iu the region of the sensibili- 
ties ; a motive to action, but not action, and possessing as before 
(except as far as it is yielded to) no moral character. 3. There 
is the voluntary disposition, which is an internal, voluntary affec- 
tion, which has a moral character, which prompts to. outward 
action, and in which the right or the wrong of the outward ac- 
tion entirely consists. Here, it will be seen, are three obviously 
different senses of the word disposition, — and the same may be 
said of the parallel word inclination, — and when these are 
confounded (as they frequently are) no wonder that confusion 
and error should be the consequence. 

We say that a person is morally able to perform an outward 
action, when he is disposed to perform it ; using the word in the 
third or voluntary sense. But when we say that a person is 
morally able to put forth some internal voluntary exercise when 
he is disposed to do it, we use the word in another sense. We 
refer now to the predominating motive, which constitutes a 
disposition, in one or both of the motive senses. 

With the explanation here given, we see no more difficulty in 
applying the distinction between natural and moral ability to 
our internal exercises, than to overt actions. We have natural 
ability for the performance of both, v^ien we have the requisite 
faculties, in a sane, healthy, working condition. We have moral 
ability for the performance of both, when Ave have the disposi- 
tion to perform them ; not using the word disposition, however, 
in both cases, in the same sense. The disposition moving to 
outward action is the voluntary disposition ; while the disposi- 
tion to put forth internal voluntary exercises is a motive dispo- 
sition, made up of the state and feelings of the mind which go to 
influence the will. Keeping in view these different senses of 
the word, there is no absurdity in saying that there may be a 
disposition before the first. Before every voluntary disposition 
there will be, must be, a motive disposition, under the influence 
of which the former is awakened and brought into exercise. 

It is demanded by those who deny natural ability, whether we 
mean to say that depraved man is able, of himself, to turn to 



NATURAL AND MORAL ABILITY, NECESSITY, ETC. 311 

God and do his duty. Before answering this question, we must 
be permitted to ask how much is intended by it. If you mean 
to inquire whether man is able to do his duty independently of 
God, without the support of his hand, and the direction of his 
providence, we answer, no-. In this sense, we can do nothing 
of ourselves. We cannot act at all, or subsist a moment. It is 
in God that " we live, and move, and have our being." But if 
yon mean to ask, whether men are naturally able to do their 
duty, without the special aid and influences of the Holy Spirit, 
we answer, yes. The Holy Spirit is given, not to impart new 
natural ability, but new moral ability ; not to bestow new natu- 
ral faculties, but to stir up to new obedience, — to make us 
willing to exert the faculties we have, in the service, and for the 
glory of God. There is an important difference between God's 
general, providential influence and agency, and the special influ- 
ences of the Holy Spirit. The former is exerted constantly, in 
all places, and at all times ; the latter is conferred or withheld, 
according to the divine pleasure. Our need of the former lies 
in the fact that we are dependent creatures ; our need of the 
latter, in the fact that we are sinners, estranged from God, and 
averse to duty. We must havejthe former, if we are to exist at 
all, or do anything, good or evil. We may exist without the 
latter, and be free, responsible agents ; though it is certain that 
we shall never do our duty. The former kind of influence would 
be necessary for us if we had never sinned, or if Christ had 
never died for our sins ; while the latter is the gift of sovereign 
mercy, flowing to us through a Redeemer. 

It is objected to what has been called natural ability, that, if 
possessed at all, it must be a, useless, worthless endowment ; since, 
unless united with moral ability, or a moving, concurrent will, 
it accomplishes nothing in the way of action. It is admitted 
that mere natural ability, or faculties alone, accomplish nothing. 
Still, it does not follow that this kind of ability is of no impor- 
tance. Are not faculties of body and mind important to us? 
What could we do, or how subsist as moral beings, without 
them ? If mere natural ability accomplishes nothing in a way 
of action, it is certain that nothing can be done without it. 

Besides, this kind of ability constitutes the -ground and the 



312 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

measure of the divine requirements, and of our obligations. 
We are bound to. do, and God justly holds us responsible for 
doing, all the good which he has given us the natural ability, 
the capacity, to perform. We may not do this, or any part of 
it ; ' but our neglect does not release us from the bonds of obli- 
gation. As God has given us our faculties, he may justly 
require us to exercise them all in his service. And this is all 
that he can justly require. Should he command us to exert 
powers which he had not given us ; should he require us to love 
him with more than all our heart and soul and mind and strength, 
the requisition would be unreasonable. 

Again, natural ability is essential to free agency, and the 
ground of it. We must have the power to choose, or refuse ; 
to turn this way, that, or the other ; to do differently from 
what we do ; or how can we be said to act freely ? It is in 
the possession and exercise of such a power, that free agency 
^properly consists. 

Thus far we have had to do chiefly with those who deny nat- 
ural ability. There are those who would exclude moral ability 
and inability, at least from the nomenclature of theology. If 
the moral cannot is no other thg,n a will not, then why not drop 
it altogether, and use will not in its stead ? 

To this we answer, first of all, that the moral cannot is found 
in all parts of the Bible ; so that without recognizing the dis- 
tinction between natural and moral inability, the Bible cannot 
be rightly interpreted or understood. Nor is this phraseology 
peculiar to the Bible. It is found, as we have said, in all lan- 
guages and in all books. It occurs perpetually in common con- 
versation, and in reference to all subjects. Hence, to exclude 
it altogether from theology would be to render the language of 
theology different, in this respect, from any other. 

Besides, there is a propriety in this peculiar phraseology. 
This is evident from the general currency which it has ob- 
tained. It is also evident from the nature of the case. A moral 
inability is a real inability ; very different in its nature from a 
natural inability, but not the less real. In every case of moral 
inability, though there may be the requisite faculties, there is 



NATURAL AND MORAL ABILITY, NECESSITY, ETC. 313 

wanting the predominant motive, and the concurrent will, with- 
out which no action will be performed. 

It should be further remarked, that the moral cannot is not 
altogether synonymous with will not. It expresses indisposi- 
tion, aversion, unwillingness, with much greater emphasis and 
strength. It is sometimes said of sinners, that they ivill not 
come to Christ. But when their criminal aversion to Christ is 
to be set forth in all its energy, the moral cannot is used. "No 
man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, 
draw him." It would but feebly set forth the moral perfection 
of an angel, to say that he will not sin against God. We rather 
say, he cannot. It would be an equally inadequate use of terms 
to say of Satan, that he will not submit to God, and return to 
his duty. He cannot. Yet in both these cases the cannot is 
altogether of a moral nature. 

We have the strongest use of the moral cannot, when it is 
applied, as it is in the Scriptures, to the Supreme Being. " Your 
new moons and solemn assemblies, I cannot away with" (Is. 
i. 18). "In hope of eternal life which God, that cannot lie, 
promised before the world began" (Tit. i. 2). "He abideth 
faithful; he cannot deny himself" (2 Tim. ii. 13). In each of 
these cases, the cannot expresses, not the want of natural abil- 
ity, but the infinite aversion of the mind of God to everything 
that is wrong. It would confer no honor upon the Supreme. 
Being, to deny his natural ability to do wrong. If he has no 
natural ability, or (which is the same) no faculties, no capacity 
to do wrong, he has none to do right, or to do anything of a 
moral nature. But we do honor God, when we deny his moral 
ability to do wrong; for this implies that, though naturally 
able as a moral agent, to do wrong, he never will do it ; he is 
infinitely and immutably averse to it. 

It is proposed, at this point, to pass from the subject of natural 
and moral ability, to consider another theological distinction 
very intimately connected with it. I mean that between natural 
and moral necessity. The want of natural ability to perform an 
action creates a natural necessity that it cannot be performed, 
however much we may desire it. The want of moral ability to 
perform an action creates no more than a moral necessity, or 

40 



314 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

previous certainty, that it will not be performed, although it 
might be, were we so disposed. 

The difference between a natural and moral necessity may be 
thus defined. A natural necessity is one over which we have 
no natural power, — one which we cannot overcome if we will. 
A moral necessity we may overcome, if we will ; though it is 
certain, at least to the mind of God, that we shall not. A nat- 
ural necessity has respect to things physical, — to events in the 
natural world. A moral necessity has respect to the actions of 
free moral agents. A natural necessity secures the occurrence 
of an event, whether we will or not. A moral necessity secures 
its occurrence through our own free, responsible agency. A 
natural necessity, so far as it interferes with voluntary action, 
destroys freedom. But a moral necessity, so far from being 
inconsistent with free agency, the rather implies it. If an event 
is sure to take place at a given time, through the agency of my 
free will, then my will must be free, and I must be a free 
agent. 

It is only on the ground of the distinction here set forth 
between a natural and a moral necessity, that it is possible to 
reconcile the absolute decrees and foreknowledge of God with 
human freedom. If the decrees of God touching the actions of 
men established a natural necessity in the case, then there could 
be no freedom. All would be fate. It would be impossible, on 
this ground, to reconcile the purposes of God and the free 
agency of man. But as the decrees of God respecting our 
actions establish only a moral necessity, or previous certainty > 
that when a particular act might be avoided, it will be per- 
formed, and that, too, in the exercise of our own free agency ; 
here, obviously, is nothing inconsistent with freedom. Free 
agency, as before remarked, is the rather included. 

And in this view, it has never seemed to me so very difficult 
to reconcile the purposes and foreknowledge of God wifh the 
freedom of man. Only recognize the distinctions between 
natural and moral ability and natural and moral necessity, and 
remember that it is a moral and not a natural necessity, which 
the divine purposes respecting our actions go to establish ; and 
we shall have no difficulty in seeing that our freedom is rather 



NATUKAL AND MOEAL ABILITY, NECESSITY, ETC. 315 

secured than impaired by these purposes. We are altogether 
as free in fulfilling God's great plan of providence respecting 
us, as though he had formed no such plan, and our actions were 
the merest contingencies. # 

The two kinds of necessity here spoken of, like the two kinds 
of ability, are frequently set forth in the Bible. The following 
are examples of a natural necessity, such as the individuals 
spoken of had no natural power to overcome. "The Lord said 
unto Moses, Behold thy days approach, that thou must die" 
(Deut. xxxi. 14) . Jeremiah says of idols, " They must needs 
be borne, because they cannot go" (Jer. x. 5). "We must all 
appear before the judgment-seat of Christ" (2 Cor. v. 10). 

Other passages may be cited as examples of a moral necessity. 
" It must needs be that offences come ; but woe to that man by 
whom the offence cometh" (Matt, xviii. 7). "When ye hear 
of wars, and rumors of wars, be not troubled ; for such things 
must needs be" (Mark xiii. 7). "The Son of man must be de- 
livered into the hands of sinful man" (Luke xxiv. 7). "All 
things must be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, 
and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me " (Luke 
xxiv. 44). 

I conclude with a few additional remarks on the importance 
of the distinctions which have been illustrated, more especially 
that between natural and moral ability. I have before said, that 
without a clear knowledge of this distinction, it is impossible 
that the Bible should be rightly understood, since the two kinds 
of ability are very often referred to in the Bible. It may be 
further added, that without a knowledge of this distinction, it is 
impossible that the condition of the impenitent sinner should be 
rightly understood. He is represented in Scripture as, in some 
sense, unable to come to Christ. But, how unable ? If naturally 
unable, then he has a good excuse for not coming to Christ, — 
the same that he has for not lifting the mountains, or creating 
worlds. But if his inability is altogether an aversion of ivill, 
constituting a rooted indisposition to come to Christ, and obey 
the gospel, then he has no excuse. His very inability is crim- 
inal, and the greater it be, the more criminal. 

Again, without maintaining the distinction here insisted on, 



316 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

it is impossible, with any show of consistency, to give the right 
directions to the inquiring sinner. Those who regard his in- 
ability as natural, — one which he has no power of any kind to 
overcome, can only direct him to read and pray, and use means 
with such a heart as he has, and wait for God to give him a 
better heart. While those who take the other view will feel 
no hesitation in directing him, as God does, to make to himself 
a new heart and a new spirit ; to repent of sin, and believe the 
gospel. 

It may be further said, that without understanding the dis- 
tinction in question, our need of the Holy Spirit, and the nature 
of his operations, cannot be rightly understood. We need the 
Spirit, not to increase our natural ability, — to give us any new 
faculties or natural powers. The difficulty lies, not in our want 
of faculties, but in the abuse of them. But we do need the 
influences of the Spirit, to overcome our moral inability, — the 
natural aversion of our hearts to God, and to make us willing 
in the day of his power, — willing to use the faculties he has 
given us in his service and for his glory. ■ 

I may further remark, that the distinctions here illustrated 
require to be understood, since without them it is impossible to 
refute the cavils of the captious and the subtle objections of 
unbelievers. Not a few of these objections owe all their plausi- 
bility to a confounding of the distinctions between natural and 
moral ability and natural and moral necessity ; and it is impos- 
sible to detect the lurking fallacy, and remove the objections 
which are urged against us, but by restoring these too oft 
forgotten, but very obvious, distinctions. 

But especially is it important to maintain the distinctions here 
insisted on, since without them it is impossible, with any logi- 
cal consistency, to hold free agency and human accountability. 
Resolve all ability into natural ability, and all necessity into 
natural necessity ; or say, with some, "An ability is an ability, 
and a necessity is a necessity, and there is no difference ; " and 
(if we will be consistent) the decrees of God become fixed fate ; 
man is transformed into a sort of intellectual automaton ; virtue 
and vice are mere names ; and free agency and human respon- 
sibility are gone forever. 



THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EIGHT AND WRONG. »317 



LECTUEE XXVIII. 

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. 

My present object is, to treat of the distinction between right 
and wrong. Is there any such radical distinction? If so, what 
is it, and on what does it rest? 

Perhaps no theoretical question can be imagined of greater 
importance than this. And there is scarcely any, concerning 
which a greater diversity of opinion has been expressed. 

Some have denied the distinction between right and wrong 
altogether. " There is no ground in nature for such a distinc- 
tion. It exists only in the prejudices of vulgar minds." It is 
remarkable that atheists, materialists, fatalists, who adopt this 
theory, are as quick to resent an injury, or revenge a wrong, as 
other men. They may deny the distinction between right and 
wrong, in words, but it has place in their minds, and they can 
never be rid of it. The fact that this distinction has been held, 
in one form or another, by all nations, shows that it is grounded 
in our very natures, and therefore must be a reality. 

But although all men, with few exceptions, have believed in 
the distinction between right and wrong, they have not been 
agreed as to the nature and the grounds of it. On these points 
a great variety of opinions has been entertained. 

Aristotle taught that virtue was a mean between two extremes. 
It consists in the moderate and just exercise of all the affections 
and passions ; whereas vice consists in defect or excess. 

Epicurus made virtue to consist in the pursuit of our own 
pleasure or happiness ; not using the word pleasure, however ' 
(as some of his followers did), in the grosser sense. 

Hobbes, an English philosopher of the seventeenth century, 
insisted that there is no distinction between right and wrong, 



318 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

except what is made by the laws of the land. The religion and 
the morality of every nation should be prescribed by the laws, 
and all the people are bound to conform to them. 

Adam Smith believed that the origin of our moral feelings 
and distinctions is founded in sympathy. Our sense of the right 
or the wrong of an action depends on our sympathy with the 
agent % and with the object of the action. In sympathizing, for 
example, in the gratitude of others, we regard the object of their 
grateful feelings as worthy of reward. In sympathizing with 
the resentment of others, we regard the object of their dis- 
pleasure as deserving of punishment. 

It would be useless to pursue and refute any of these theories 
of morals. They once had their advocates and abettors, but 
are scarcely known at the present day. There are other theo- 
ries, however, which require a more particular consideration. 

It has been said, that the only difference between right and 
wrong lies in difference of education, of manners, and of national 
customs. We are accustomed to consider certain actions as 
right, and to us they are right. But where the religion and the 
customs of a people are different, they decide such questions — 
and they are entitled to — very differently. For example, the 
ancient Spartans thought it right to steal ; the Eoman Catholics 
think it right to pray to the Virgin Mary ; and the heathen 
nations to worship idols. Some of the heathen think it right to 
destroy their aged parents and their infant children, and to 
immolate themselves on their bloody altars. » 

But what are we to infer from instances such as these ? That 
there is no distinction between right and wrong ? Or. that indi- 
viduals and nations, owing to improper training and example, 
are liable to mistake fatally as to what is right and what is 
wrong? In speaking of conscience, in a former Lecture, we 
defined it to be intellectually a judgment as to the moral quality 
of actions, connected with a feeling of approbation or disappro- 
bation, according as they were judged to be right or wrong. 
Now that part of conscience which is a judgment belongs to 
the understanding ; and the understanding has need of light 
and instruction in respect to moral subjects, as much as any 
other. Without light and instruction, or (what is worse) with 



THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. 319 

wrong instructions, the understanding is as sure to err on moral 
subjects as on any other. It is not to be wondered at, there- 
fore, considering the darkness which prevails over a great part 
of the earth, the kind of instruction which is imparted, and the 
examples which are set, that mistakes should be made — great 
and fatal mistakes — as to what is right, and what is wrong. 
It is not to be wondered at that the heathen nations should, in 
many instances, " call evil good and good evil ; and put dark- 
ness for light and light for darkness." Facts like those adverted 
to above do not disprove the distinction between right and 
wrong. So far from this, they clearly recognize such a distinc- 
tion. They merely prove, that in tracing out and applying the 
distinction, men are not infallible, but are liable and likely, 
under wrong instruction, to make sad mistakes. 

Some men have laid the foundation of the distinction between 
right and wrong in the tendency of actions ; those actions being 
right, which are, on the whole, useful, or which tend to promote 
the general good, while all of an opposite tendency are wrong. 
In examining the theory here presented, it must be admitted 
that right action is always the most happy in its results. ■ Its 
tendency, on the whole, is beneficial. But it by no means 
follows that such action is right, because it is beneficial. The 
presumption rather is, that there must be something excellent 
in the very nature of virtue or right, which gives it its beneficial 
tendency, — which makes it, under all circumstances, promotive 
of good. 

It must be farther admitted that, not unfrequently, in decid- 
ing questions of duty, we are under the necessity of going into 
considerations of expediency. We have no direct command of 
God for our guide, and the other lights which nature and reason 
hold out to us are not sufficient : so there is nothing left us but 
to determine, as we are able, what will be, on the whole, for the 
best. But it does not follow, from this circumstance, that the 
foundation of virtue lies in its beneficial tendency ; but only 
that, from the fact of its beneficial tendency, we may sometimes 
determine (when all other means fail us) what actions are or 
will be right. The beneficial tendency, after all, may be but 
au appendage of the right action. Still, as it is an invariable 



320 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

appendage, we may, in the absence of other means, refer to it 
in resolving questions of duty. 

My objections to the theory of virtue now under consideration 
are the following : 

1. It lays the foundation of virtue, not in its essential nature, 
but in its tendencies and results. And the question at once 
arises, — the same to which we just now adverted, — Why are 
the tendencies of virtuous action so uniformly happy? And 
must there not be something distinguishing and excellent in 
virtue itself — something which lies at the very foundation of 
it — which gives it' its beneficial tendency, and secures the happy 
results which are seen to flow from it ? 

2. Our second objection to this theory is, that it represents 
happiness, or natural good, as preferable to holiness, or moral 
good. Holiness, according to the theory, is to be regarded 
only as a means of happiness. Happiness is the end, holiness 
is but the means. And since the end is always of more impor- 
tance than the means, therefore happiness is better than holiness. 
But this is directly inverting the scriptural view of the subject, 
and also that which copamends itself to the common sense and 
apprehensions of men. Holiness, according to the Scriptures, 
is the highest good. The excellence of God's character consists 
in his holiness ; and we are commanded to be holy, for God is 
holy. It may be, and it is, a recommendation of holiness that 
its tendency is forever happy. This is one of the considerations 
which go to illustrate the excellent nature of holiness. But to 
say that its chief excellence lies here — that this is the grand 
characteristic trait which goes to separate holiness from sin — 
seems to me not only to degrade holiness, but to be unscriptural 
and absurd. 

3. The theory before us contradicts the Scriptures in other 
points besides that here indicated. The Scriptures direct that 
" whether we eat, or drink, or whatever we do, all is to be done 
to the glory of God ; " and that we are to "glorify God in our 
bodies and in our spirits, which are God's." But the direction 
of this theory of virtue would be, "Consult your own happiness, 
and that of others. Do that-, and that only, which will be likely 
to issue in the greatest happiness." Again, the inspired writers 



THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. 321 

reprobate the maxim that we are to "do evil that good may 
come." But, according to the view we are considering, it is 
impossible to "do evil that good may come ;" because, if good 
comes of any particular action, or if it was the design of the 
actor that good should come of it, then the act itself was good, 
and not evil. 

4. We object, finally, to the theory before us, that it resolves 
the whole science of morals into little more than a calculation 
of consequences. Whenever a question of duty arises, the in- 
quiry, according to this doctrine, will naturally be, not so much 
what God commands and conscience approves, as what will be 
most promotive of happiness ; not so directly, what is in itself 
right, as what will be the most expedient. I have before 
admitted that, in some few cases, we have no other means of 
determining a question of duty but by resolving it into one of 
general expediency. But it by no means follows that this is to 
be adopted as a leading or a common method of coming to a 
knowledge of our duty. In a great majority of cases the path 
of duty is clear, or may be made so, irrespective of conse- 
quences ; and in every such case we are bound to follow it, — ■ 
follow it up to the last inch, so far as it can be discovered, let 
the consequences be what they may. 

Some writers have laid the distinction between right and 
wrong in the mere will of the Supreme Being. "Certain actions 
are right, because God has commanded them, and others are 
wrong, because he has forbidden them ; and the natures of both 
would be instantly changed if such were his pleasure. 

Before entering on the discussion of the question here pre- 
sented, it is necessary to understand precisely what that question 
is. It is not this, whether the declared will of God is a safe 
rule for us to follow. Beyond all dispute, it is a safe rule. If 
the will of God constitutes the right, then certainly it is safe* to 
follow it. And we come to the same conclusion if we regard 
the divine will as the mere exponent of the right. For we must 
remember, in this case, that God is infinitely wiser than wc ; 
that he knows infinitely better what is right, and that he cer- 
tainly will not deceive us ; so that when his will indicates to us 

41 



822 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

a particular course, we are bouud to follow it, whether the 
reasons are obvious to us or not. 

The question, then, is not this, whether it is safe and proper 
for us, under all circumstances, to obey the known will of God ; 
but rather this, whether the mere pleasure' of God constitutes the 
difference between right and wrong. Does his will make right 
right and wrong wrong ; and could he, by a mere act of his 
will, change the one into the other? These questions I am 
constrained to answer in the negative, and for the following 
reasons : 

1. If the will of God is the sole and ultimate- standard of 
right, then it is naturally impossible for him to will wrong. It 
is morally impossible for God to will wrong. In other words, 
he is infinitely and unchangeably averse to the wrong. But if 
his will were the ultimate standard of right, it would be natu- 
rally impossible for him to will wrong. He could not do it, if 
he would. For whatever his will might be, it must be right, 
and that simply because it was his will. But a supposition such 
as this, instead of exalting the divine character, virtually destroys 
it. If it is naturally impossible for God to will wrong, what 
virtue or glory can there be in his willing right ? It is the glory 
of the Supreme Being, not that he always does as he pleases, 
but that he always pleases to do right. His character is the 
admiration and delight of heaven, not merely because it is his 
character, and he always does his pleasure, but because his 
pleasure is always right. But this implies a standard of right, 
independent of the mere will and pleasure of God, to which his 
pleasure is conformed. 

2. If God's will is tne ultimate standard of right, then there 
is no intrinsic excellence in holiness or odiousness in sin. Holi- 
ness, on this ground, is good and right, because God willed it 
should be so ; and sin is hateful, for the same reason ; and there 
is no intrinsic, independent goodness in the one, or baseness in 
the other. But is such a supposition admissible ? Why does 
God enjoin holiness, if it is not good in itself; or forbid sin, if 
it is not evil in itself? And if the one is good, and the other 
evil in. itself, independent of the mere will of God, then there 



THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EIGHT AND WEONG. 323 



• must be a standard of good and evil, right and wrong, aside 
from his will. 

3. If there is no standard of right prior, in the order of 
nature, to the will of God, then, previous to willing, he could 
have been under no moral obligations to will one way rather 
than another. Moral obligation necessarily implies some rule 
or standard out of the will itself, to which the person acting 
feels himself bound to conform his will. Hence, if there is 
no standard out of the will of God, then, previous to actfng, 

• he could have felt* under no sort of obligation to will one way 
rather than another. He might will this, or that, and whatever 
he did will would, of course, be right, just because he willed 
it. But to conceive of a moral agent who is under no moral 
obligation, and never was and never can be, is perhaps impos- 
sible. 

4. If the will of God is the ultimate standard of right, then 
he may alter the standard at pleasure. By a single act of his 
will he may make right wrong, and wrong right. But this is 
manifestly inconceivable and impossible. It is not irreverent to 
say that God cannot make right wrong and wrong right, more 
than he can perform any other natural impossibility. 

5. It is evident that the will of God is not the ultimate stand- 
ard of right, since he calls upon men to judge of the rectitude 
of his conduct. " Are not my ways equal ? Are not your ways 
unequal?" "O my people! what have I done unto thee, and 
wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me." "Judge, 
I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard." Manifestly, there 
would be no propriety in appeals such as these, if the mere will 
of God was the ultimate standard of right. No doubt, his will 
conforms to his will. But there is a deeper question than this, 
on which his creatures are invited to sit in judgment ; viz. , whether 
his tvill is right. And this implies that there is a standard of 
right, common to him and to them, by which they are invited 
to judge of his dispensations. 

6. If the* will of God is the ultimate standard of right, then 
we need not trouble ourselves in investigating the rectitude, the 
moral perfection of the divine character. The moral perfections 
of God are not only the most important branch of natural the- 



824 % CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ology, but the part most difficult to be successfully demonstrated 
from the mere light of nature. But, on the theory here exam- 
ined, there need be no difficulty. We have only to inquire 
whether God has a will of his own, and whether he acts accord- 
ing to it. If the will of God is the ultimate standard of right, 
then, be his will what it may, it must be right, and he must be 
a holy being. I hardly need say that the true question, as to 
the moral perfection of the divine character, is one very differ- 
ent from this. 

7. If the will of God is the ultimate stancfard of right, then, 
beyond where he has revealed his will we have nothing to guide 
us ; nor is there, in fact, any such thing to us as right or wrong. 
Some moral questions are so very obvious, that we feel as though 
we needed no revelation from heaven for our guide. " Why, 
even of yourselves," says our Saviour, "judge ye not what is 
right?" We feel that we are able to determine such questions 
of ourselves. But, on the theory before us, we are mistaken in 
these impressions. If the will of God is the ultimate standard 
of right, then, except where he has willed, there is no right ; 
and except where we have a revelation of his will, we are left 
in utter darkness. 

But I will not pursue this theory of 'morals further. The 
will of God, so far as known, is the infallible exponent, but not 
the ultimate standard, of right. It does not create the right, 
but reveals it, and is a binding rule of duty to all his intelligent 
creatures. 

It is said by some, that the foundation of the distinction be- 
tween right and wrong is laid in the constitution of the human 
mind. " We are so constituted, as to approve of certain actions 
as right, and disapprove and condemn their opposites as wrong." 
We shall have no occasion to go into a prolonged discussion of 
this theory, since it is open to the same objections as that last 
considered, and, in fact, amounts to much the same thing. It 
supposes no inherent, essential distinction between right and 
wrong, but resolves all into the constitution of the human mind. 
But who constituted the human mind ? To whose power and 
will are we indebted for that particular mental constitution to 
which the. theory refers? Of course, to the power and will of 



THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. 325 

God ; and this becomes, as before, the foundation of the dis- 
tinction between right and wrong. By the mere fiat of his will, 
he made the right and the wrong, and constituted us so that we 
judge of them accordingly. 

It is pertinent to inquire here — and the inquiry, it is hoped, 
is not irreverent — whether God could have constituted us, in 
this respect, differently. Could he have so constituted his crea- 
tures, that it should be right for them — should be their duty — 
to hate himself; to hate, injure, and murder one another ; or do 
any other .palpably wrong thing? The very terms of the in- 
quiry go to show the absurdity of it ; and show that there must 
be an inherent and essential difference between right and wrong, 
which God has no more the ability, than he has the disposition, 
to change. God could make it the duty of Abraham to sacrifice 
his son ; but not to murder him. He could make it the duty 
of Joshua to destroy the Canaanites ; but not to do it with 
malice in his heart. He could make it the duty of Sennacherib 
to go and chastise the guilty nation of Israel ; but not to do it 
from motives of spite and revenge. And because he went 
under the influence of such motives, God punished him for 
going. (See Is. x. 12.) 

We have now examined several theories of morals, which, at 
different periods, have had their advocates, and have seen cause 
to reject them all. The question then returns, What theory is 
to be adopted ? What is the true nature of virtue or holiness ? 
What is the proper ground of distinction between right and 
wrong ? 

To these inquiries, I answer, the distinction between right and 
wrong is immutable and eternal.. God did not create it, nor has 
he any power or inclination to alter it. It results from the very 
nature and relations of things. Ultimately, it may be said to 
lie in the nature of God himself. God exists as he is, from an 
inherent and eternal necessity. And being what he is, certain 
things, in distinction from others, were in eternity fit, right, and 
proper for him to do. His will did not make them right, but in 
the possession of omniscience, he perceived that they were right. 
They were inherently and necessarily so. 

In pursuance of the right thus perceived, God formed his 



326 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

eternal aud universal plan, and has entered upon its execution. 
In carrying out this stupendous plan of providence, systems, 
suns, and worlds have been called into being. Intelligent 
spirits innumerable, in this world and in other worlds, have 
been created. They have been created in such manner, and 
with such natures, as in eternity God saw it to be right they 
should be. 

These created spirits, being thus brought into existence, be- 
tween each of them and its Creator there subsist now certain 
relations. And from these several relations result duties and 
obligation both ways. God being what he is, and I being what 
I am, certain things are due, both from me to him and from him 
to me. Certain courses of action, of treatment, are fit, proper, 
right for us, one way and the other. And the same may be said 
of every other intelligent creature in the universe. 

The creatures of God, too, sustain certain relations to each 
other ; and from these relations result mutual, reciprocal obli- 
gations. A particular course of conduct is^, proper, right, on 
the part of parents towards their children, and of children to- 
wards their parents. Teachers have duties to discharge to their 
pupils, and pupils to their teachers. The same is true of min- 
isters towards their people, and of people to their ministers. 
And so of all the various relations of life. Every intelligent 
being stands related, in some way, to every other, and has some 
resulting duty to perform towards every other of which he has 
any knowledge. The revealed will of God is the infallible index 
and exponent of right, but not that which creates the right, or 
establishes the distinction between right and wrong. 

I have spoken of the right and the wrong • of actions as 
resulting from the necessary relations of things ; those actions 
which harmonize with these relations being right, and those of 
the opposite character being wrong. And if it be here inquired, 
how we become acquainted with these relations, and with the 
harmonies or duties growing out of them, more especially in 
cases where we have not the revealed will of God for our 
guide ; the proper answer to this question throws us back on a 
subject which has been before discussed, — I mean, that of con- 
science. We described conscience, it will be remembered, not 



THE DISTINCTION" BETWEEN EIGHT AND WRONG. 327 

as a simple faculty or power of the mind, but as a complex 
mental operation, one part of which belongs to the intellect, and 
the other to the sensibilities. The intellectual conscience belongs 
to that faculty which perceives relations, and which is commonly 
called judgment. The dictates of conscience, in this view of it, 
are the judgments which we form respecting the right and the 
wrong — the moral quality of actions. The intellectual con- 
science is not infallible. It is liable to mistake, and, with im- 
proper instruction, is very likely to make mistakes. As soon 
as the intellectual conscience has come to a decision, the sen- 
tient conscience begins to work. We begin to feel under obliga- 
tions to perform the right perceived, and to feel self-approbation 
or remorse, according as the duty is discharged or neglected. 

A question of some difficulty may here be asked : Ought a 
person always to follow the dictates of his conscience? In 
other words, Should he always do what seems to him to be 
right? In considering this question, it will be necessary to 
separate it from several others which have not unfrequently 
been confounded with it. 

1. It is not a man's duty to act without consulting his con- 
science, from the mere promptings of education, custom, and 
prejudice. In this way, the heathen generally act. They 
assume that it is right for them to follow the religion of their 
fathers, — to worship the same idols, and observe the same 
hideous, barbarous rites. 

In a loose sense of the term, they may be said to be sincere, 
and even conscientious, in their worship. And yet, it is hardly 
probable that they have ever looked at the subject in the clear, 
direct light of reason and conscience at all. They blindly fol- 
low the customs of their fathers, presuming that all is safe and 
well, but never stopping to ask any questions in regard to it. 

2. It is not a man's duty to act under the influence of hatred 
and passion, which go to blind the understanding and stifle the 
voice of reason and conscience. This, it is presumed, has been 
the case generally with warriors, crusaders, and violent perse- 
cutors. They have no doubt that their. cause is good, and they 
are very sincere, and (as they think) conscientious, in pursuing 
it, and yet they have never seriously and earnestly taken coun- 



328 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

sel of their consciences* but only of their prejudices -and passions. 
Like one of old, they " breathe out threatenings and slaughter," 
against the objects of their hate. They madly pursue them, 
even unto death, and vainly flatter themselves that they are 
doing God service. 

3. It is not a man's duty to act from self-will, or party zeal, 
and plead conscience to justify him in all his extravagances. 
There is much of this kind of conscientiousness in the world. 
Men commit themselves, in the outset, to some particular sect, or 
party, or object of pursuit. They feel bound to approve of all 
the measures which are taken to promote it. The more contra- 
diction they encounter, the more unreasonable and obstinate they 
become. Still, they fancy themselves very conscientious. They 
cannot, in conscience, swerve a hair's breadth from the course 
they are pursuing. Their unhappiness is, that they mistake 
bigotry and will for conscience, and substitute the former in 
place of the latter. 

4. I remark once more, it is not a man's duty to act, in any 
important matter, hastily, or in the dark, without giving con- 
science a fair opportunity to decide the case, and bring in its 
verdict. Conscience, considered as an intellectual exercise, 
requires opportunity and means, in order that a satisfactory 
decision may be formed. It should be consulted deliberately, 
impartially, and prayerfully, in view of all the light which can 
be obtained. Such a dealing with conscience is indispensable, 
in order that it may be to us a wholesome guide ; and those who 
treat their consciences differently, appealing to them hastily, 
partially, dubiously, blindly, can only be said to pervert and 
abuse them. 

But here is a person, we will suppose, to whom some prop- 
osition of importance is made, on which he must decide one 
way or the other. He has no desire but to know his duty, and 
to do it. He looks at the case in all its bearings and relations, 
looks at it in the light of God's Word, and looks to God 
for direction in regard to it. At length, the path of duty is 
made seemingly plain to him. He knows, or he think| he 
knows, what he ought to do. And now if it be asked whether 
this man shall follow the dictates of his conscience ; I answer, 






THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EIGHT AND WEONG. 329 

yes. Let him do what he intelligently and honestly thinks is 
right. And if it shall appear, afterwards, that he has made a 
mistake, the mistake, so far as he is concerned, is an innocent 
one. His conscience is easy. He has nothing with which to 
reproach himself in regard to it. 

An action may be wrong in itself, which, to the person per- 
forming it, at the time, is not wrong. For example, an indi- 
vidual comes to me with some object of charity. I look into it 
with deliberation and care ; I judge it to be a worthy object, 
and I patronize it accordingly. I cast in my mite to help it 
forward. But it afterwards appears that I have been imposed 
upon. The object was not a worthy one. It was not one which 
I should have favored, if I had understood it perfectly. In 
patronizing it, therefore, I may be said to have done a thing 
wrong in itself. I have aided to promote an object which, in 
my conscience, I now disapprove. But was the act morally 
ivrong in me, at the time? Did I sin in performing it? I think 
not. I may regret the mistake into which I was led. I may 
regret that my money was worse than thrown away. But my 
conscience will never reproach me for having sinned, at the 
time, — for having perpetrated a moral wrong. It will be 
enough for me to say at the bar of God : " I sincerely, honestly, 
and after all the light that I could obtain, thought that I was 
doing right." 

42 



330 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUEE XXIX, 



NATUKE OF HOLINESS AND OF SIN. 



In our last Lecture, I endeavored to show, that although the 
law of God is the infallible index and exponent of right, it is 
not itself the ultimate standard of right, — that the distinction 
between right and wrong lies, primarily, in the very nature of 
the Supreme Being, and is, like his nature, immutable and 
eternal. We come now to inquire more particularly into the 
natures of holiness and of sin. 

It is obvious, first of all, that holiness is conformity, and sin 
a want of conformity, in moral character and conduct, to the 
standard of right; or, in other words, that holiness is the same 
as moral right, and sin the same as moral wrong. On this point 
there can be no dispute. * 

It may be further remarked, that sin and holiness are, in their 
natures, active. They are not dormant, passive things, but are 
the properties of our free, intelligent, thinking, active minds. 
They are properties into which the voluntary element always 
enters ; with which the will has more or less to do. 

We do not mean by this that sin and holiness attach only to 
our executive volitions and outward actions. We use the term 
voluntary in a much wider sense. Nor do we mean that all bur 
internal moral affections are purely voluntary. Many of them 
are of a complex character ; partly intellectual, partly'fsentient, 
and but partly voluntary. Thus repentance (in the larger sense 
of the term) involves conviction of sin, which is chiefly intel- 
lectual ; sorrow for sin, which is chiefly sentient ; and a turning 
from sin, which is voluntary. Other of our mental affections 
are holy or sinful, because they are more or less under the con- 
trol of the will. This is true of our trains of thought. These 



NATUKE OF HOLINESS AND OF SIN. 331 

are so much under the direction of the will, that improper 
thoughts, when indulged, become sinful thoughts ; and proper 
thoughts are holy thoughts. And so also of many of our 
sentient feelings. We are commanded to be of good cheer, to 
rejoice in the Lord, and to sympathize with those around us in 
their sorrows and their joys. The states of mind here incul- 
cated are chiefly sentient ; and yet they are so much under the 
control of the will, that they are with propriety enjoined upon 
us, and, when duly exercised, they are right, or holy. 

I make these explanations, that I may not be misunderstood. 
When we say that our holy and sinful affections are in their 
natures active, and to some extent voluntary, we do not confine 
sin and holiness to our mere executive volitions, or to such in- 
ternal affections as are purely voluntary ; but we do understand 
that into them all the voluntary element more or less enters, so 
as to give them a free and active character, and consequently a 
moral character. In proof of the active, and (to some extent) 
voluntary nature of holiness and sin, I urge, — 

1. That holiness is the subject of direct command, and sin of 
positive prohibition, in the Scriptures. We are commanded to 
be holy; we are forbidden to be sinful. "Cease to do evil; 
learn to do well." This is the substance of all the commands 
and prohibitions of the Bible. Now, though there are various 
things involved in these commands and prohibitions, they are 
all addressed, obviously, to our active natures ; and the things 
required or forbidden imply some exercise of will. The imper- 
ative phraseology, Do this or Do that, or Thou shalt not do 
this, or Thou shalt not do that, implies that there is something 
to be done, or not done, — something in which the subject is sup- 
posed to be active. 

No reasonable parent ever requires that of a child in which the 
child is not regarded as free and active. And none but a tyrant 
ever requires that of a subject in which the subject is not free 
and active. What would be thought of the kino: of Timbuctoo 
or Fezzan, if he should command his sable subjects to become 
instantly white ? Or what would be thought of any other king, 
who should command his subjects, under penalty of death, to 
change their very natures, — the constitution and faculties of 



332 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

their bodies, or their souls? And shall we charge upon the 
Monarchy of heaven a degree of tyranny and cruelty which 
would disgrace to scandal any monarchy on earth ? Shall we 
suppose God to require that of his intelligent creatures, under 
penalty of his eternal displeasure, in which they are not active, 
and over which they have no voluntary power ? Yet God does 
require his intelligent creatures to hate and forsake every form 
of sin, and to practise all holiness. What, then, are we to infer 
as to the natures of holiness and sin ? Can we avoid the con- 
clusion (if God is just) that sin and holiness, in all their forms, 
must be of an active nature and character? But, — 

2. God not only issues commands and prohibitions, but he 
uses all proper motives with his sinful creatures, to induce them 
to forsake their sins and become holy. He invites them, en- 
treats them, pleads and reasons with them, and urges every 
motive which ought to have influence upon their minds and 
hearts. Now all this implies, necessarily, that holiness and sin 
are proper objects of persuasion ; or, in other words, that they 
are of an active nature. On any other supposition, motives 
would be quite out of place, and all attempts at persuasion would 
be impertinent. 

3. In proof of the active nature of sin and holiness, we may 
further urge the testimony of conscience. It will not be doubted 
that conscience approves of all that is holy within us, and con- 
demns what is sinful. But does conscience ever approve or 
condemn us ; do we feel worthy of praise or blame, reward or 
punishment, for that in which we have had no active concern ? 
Let any person make the experiment. Let him try it on him- 
self, or on another. The African may feel, perhaps, that his 
complexion is his misfortune ; but endeavor to impress on him 
a sense of guilt, and make him feel that he is to blame, and 
deserving of punishment, on account of the color of his skin, 
and see if you can succeed in the undertaking. But why not? 
The most ignorant African has sense enough to reply to all your 
arguments : " I did not make the color of my skin. I had no 
active concern in it. How, then, am I blameworthy for it?" 
This is a subject on which the common sense of all men speaks 
out ; and to force a theological dogma, or a philosophical .sp ecu- 



NATURE OF HOLINESS AND OF SIN. 333 

lation, in opposition to common sense, is to encounter an invin- 
cible assailant. 

Naturam expellasfurca, tamen usque recurret. No man ever 
felt himself blameworthy, — no man's conscience ever approved 
or condemned him, for that in which he was not himself active. 
It follows, therefore, since our consciences do approve us for 
whatever we have that is holy, and condemn us for all our sins, 
that holiness and sin are in their natures active. 

4. In proof of the same point, we further urge, that it is for 
their deeds only that men are to give an account in the day of 
judgment. " We must all appear before the judgment-seat of 
Christ, that' every one may receive the things done in his body, 
according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad " 
(2 Cor. v. 10). "Who shall render to every man according to 
his deeds" (Kom. ii. 6). "Then shall he reward every man, 
according to his ivories" (Matt. xvi. 27). It is evident, from 
these and similar passages, that all the holiness of men, and all 
their sins, are to be regarded as, in some sense, deeds or works; 
which is only saying, in other words, that in all their holiness 
and sin they are active. 

The Apostle John has given us a definition of sin, in which 
the same view is presented. " Sin is a transgression of the 
law." And lest this might not be thought sufficiently explicit, 
he tells us, in the same verse, what he means by a transgression 
of the law. It is actively to commit sin. "He that committeth 
sin transgresseth also the law" (1 John hi. 4). 

It may be objected to the views above exhibited, that they 
leave wholly out of the account our sin of nature. Our very 
natures, some tell us, are sinful; — so sinful, that, without a 
change in them, we can no more perform a good action than a 
lion can become a lamb, or a viper a dove. This sinful nature 
is represented as the very fountain of corruption, out of which 
all actual transgressions flow, and without which there could be 
no sin in the world. 

Before replying directly to this objection, let us ascertain more 
specifically how much is meant by it. We hold to the doctrine 
of natural and entire depravity ; — that men are the subjects of 
a natural bias or tendency to evil, under the influence of which 



334 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

sin is natural to them. They fall into it from the first moment 
of their existence, and persist in it till renewed by sovereign 
grace. And if the advocates of a sinful nature mean by it an 
active nature, — something which stirs itself freely, spontane- 
ously, actively, sinfully ; we agree with them in respect to that. 
But to the notion of a sinful nature which is not active, — which 
is back of everything active within us, — the origin of all actual 
transgression, and without a change of which no good action 
can possibly be performed; we have very strong objections. 

1. This theory presents us with two entirely different kinds of 
sin. There is one kind of sin in which we are active, and for 
which we feel guilty, and are conscious of deserving blame and 
punishment. There is another kind of sin in which we have 
had no active concern, and for which we never feel guilty. We 
may regard our sinful nature as our calamity, but can never 
think of it as our fault, our crime, for which we may justly be 
blamed and punished. 

2. The theory here examined makes God the responsible 
author of sin, — at least of that sin which attaches to our nature, 
and which is the source and fountain of all the rest. If God is 
not its responsible author, who is ? Certainly we have had no 
active concern in its origination. It was born with us ; it 
attaches to the very constitution of our souls ; and must be 
charged, for aught I see, upon the great Author of our being. 

3. The theory under consideration divests us entirely and 
confessedly of all natural ability to do our duty. We are 
utterly disabled. Until our natures are changed — and in this 
change of nature we are entirely passive — we can no more 
perform a good action than we can fly without wings, or work 
miracles. Hence, — 

4. The Bible, on this ground, is utterly at fault, in requiring 
sinners to do their duty, and in threatening them so severely in 
case they refuse to comply. It is at fault, also, in urging motives 
upon sinners, to induce them to do what they have no natural 
ability to perform. 

5. On this ground, ministers have little or nothing to do for 
the sinner, unless it be to pity him, condole with him, pray for 
Mm, and commend him to the mercy of God, who peradventure 



NATUKE OF HOLINESS AND OF SIN. 335 

may have mercy upon him. Certainly, ministers can give no 
directions to the sinner, according to this theory, except that he 
use means with such a nature as he has, and wait and pray for 
God to change it. 

6. I object again to the theory in question, that it is inconsist- 
ent with, facts recorded in the Scriptures. This theory accounts 
for all sin by referring it to a sinful nature, and denies that 
actual sin can be conceived of as possible on any other grounds. 
How, then, are we to account for the first sin of the rebel angels, 
and for that of our first parents ? Did their first sin arise from 
a sinful nature? Again, — 

7. This theory involves a palpable absurdity, — that of sup- 
posing a sin before the first sin, and without which the first sin 
could never have been committed. 

But I will pursue this theory no further. It is a theory not 
of the Bible, but of the schools. It is a philosophical theory, 
or rather a very unphilosophical one, of stating and defending 
some of the doctrines of the Gospel. The views of holiness 
and sin which have been presented in this Lecture as being in 
their natures free and active, run clear of all the above objec- 
tions, and are in strict accordance with the Bible, with sound 
philosophy, and with common sense. And these views we deem 
of great importance to the gospel minister ; and that for two 
reasons : — 

1. On this ground, he will be able to present the gospel 
urgently and faithfully, without involving himself in perpetual 
inconsistencies and self-contradictions. He can urge unregen- 
erate men to repent and make to themselves new hearts , believ- 
ing that the change to which they are urged it one in which they 
are themselves active, and which they have the natural ability 
to accomplish. But suppose sin to enter into the very constitu- 
tion of the soul, so that the sinner is not active in it, or in the 
radical, original part of it, and has no power of any kind to turn 
from it and become holy ; and the preacher who so understands 
the subject must either cease to preach as the apostles did, and 
urge sinners to repentance, or he must involve himself in per- 
petual inconsistencies and self-contradictions. For if we exhort 
the sinner with one breath to repent, and with the next tell him 



336 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

that he is utterly disabled and has no power of any kind to turn 
from his sins and do his duty ; we may urge what we please in 
self-justification, he will say, and say truly, that we contradict 
at one time what we assert at another, and that we preach 
inconsistently and absurdly. And with such an impression on 
his mind, we shall be little likely to secure his confidence or to 
do him good. 

2. The views which have been exhibited are also important, 
because they furnish the only ground on which the minister of 
Christ can meet and direct the anxious inquirer. An inquiring 
sinner comes to me with the question of the jailer, " Sir, what 
must I do to be saved?" I answer, as the apostle did, "Be- 
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." But 
he replies, "My dear sir, I cannot believe. I have not been 
regenerated. I am in a state of sin. I have no ability or 
capacity to change my heart and become holy. You have told 
me so a thousand times. And why do you direct me to the 
performance of that, which you insist that I have no power to 
do?" To an appeal such as this, what could I reply? Mani- 
festly nothing, — unless I recede from the ground of the apos- 
tle, and tell him, at the risk of his soul's salvation, to do what 
he can, and God peradventure will do the rest ; to seek and use 
means with such a heart as he has, and wait for God to give 
him a better heart. 

But on the ground taken in this Lecture, there is no difficulty 
in directing the inquiring sinner. If sin and holiness are in 
their natures active, and the change from the former to the latter 
is an active change, which the sinner is naturally able and 
under obligations to accomplish, so that he needs the Spirit, not 
to give him any new natural powers, but rather to incline him 
to use the powers he has in a proper manner ; then there is no 
difficulty in addressing him just as the Bible does. " Cease to 
do evil, and learn to do well." " Choose life." "Make you a 
new heart and a new spirit." " Kepent ye and believe the 
gospel." 

But we need not dwell longer on the active nature of sin and 
holiness. We now take another step in the investigation of the 
subject, and remark that all holiness is comprised in impartial 



XATUEE OF HOLINESS AXD OF SEN". 337 

benevolence or disinterested love; and all sin in selfishness. By 
impartial, disinterested love, we mean a love to being in general, 
and to all beings of- whom we have any knowledge, in propor- 
tion to their perceived worthiness. It fixes upon God above all, 
because he is infinitely more worthy than all other beings ; and 
it fixes on created beings, and on self among the rest, just in 
proportion to perceived worthiness. This holy, impartial, dis- 
interested love is supposed to be the primary ingredient, the 
element of all holiness. It lies at the foundation, it constitutes 
the basis, of every holy affection. The truth of this statement 
is evident, — 

1. From what is said in Scripture as to the character of God. 
"God is love." His whole moral character is comprised in, and 
may be resolved into, holy, disinterested love. His justice, his 
mercy, his truth, his faithfulness, indeed eYery moral perfection 
of his nature, are but varied manifestations of benevolence. 
But holiness is of the same pure and excellent nature every- 
where, and if all the holiness of God may be resolved into 
benevolence, the same is true of the holiness of creatures. It 
is believed that every holy affection, if carefully analyzed, will 
be found to have its primary ingredient, its element, in holy 
love. 

2. The law of God, in the most summary expression of it, 
requires nothing but love. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
.with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy strength, and 
with all thy mind ; and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." 
It is evident, from this important fact, that the spirit, the 
element, of every duty and of every form of holiness is love. 
He who possesses this spirit and exemplifies it in every proper 
way, fulfils the whole law, and does his whole duty. 

3. On this point other passages of Scripture are full and deci- 
sive. Our Saviour, having repeated the two great injunctions 
of the law, requiring us to love God supremely and our neigh- 
bor as ourselves, adds, "On these two commandments hang all 
the law and the prophets" (Matt. xxii. 40). The Apostle Paul 
represents this holy, impartial love, as "the bond of perfection," 
"the end of the commandment," "the fulfilling of the law." 
He moreover assures us, in the most emphatic terms, that 

43 



338 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

whatever else a man may do or have, if he have not charity, or 
holy love, he is nothing.* 

And as all holy affections are essentially benevolent, so all 
sinful ones may be resolved into selfishness. By selfishness we 
mean, not that instinctive desire of happiness, which is a mere 
feeling, and which no one can or should repress ; nor that love 
of ourselves which we are bound to exercise, as being part of 
the great whole ; not that care and interest which every one is 
bound to take in respect to his own proper concerns, without 
needlessly interfering with those of his neighbors. But by 
selfishness we do mean a supreme love of self; a setting up of 
self above everything else, making it a central point, and esti- 
mating other objects chiefly, if not solely, as they bear upon 
this. Selfishness, in this sense, is the opposite of that benevo- 
lence which comprises all holiness, and consequently may be 
regarded as comprising all sin. As every holy affection may 
be resolved into benevolence, so envy, avarice, pride, revenge, 
and every other sinful affection may be resolved into selfishness. 
To be selfish, in the sense explained, is, in spirit, to break 
every command of God, and to indulge a temper which is the 
root and element of all wickedness. 

Remarks. 

1. In prizing his own glory above every other object, God is 
not selfish. His glory is intrinsically of more value than every 
other object ; and hence, impartial, disinterested love requires 
him thus to regard it. 

2. As holiness is everywhere the same in essence, it varies 
only in respect to its objects. Holy affections assume different 
forms and take different names, according as they are put forth 
in view of different objects. Thus, the same kind of affection 
which, in view of God's holy character, is complacent love, will 
be penitence, in view of personal sin ; gratitude, in view of a 
benefactor; trust, in view of the Saviour; submission, in view 
of the claims of God's government ; and a feeling of benevo- 
lence, in view of lost sinners. The object of the holy affection 
changes, and with it the name and form of the affection ; but its 

* See Col. iii. 14. 1 Tim. 1. 5. Rom. xiii. 10. 1 Cor. xiii. 1-3. 



NATURE OF HOLINESS AND OF SIN. 339 

nature is always the same at the bottom, — in its element it is 
always holy, disinterested love. 

3. The views here presented of holiness and of sin, as con- 
sisting essentially in benevolence and selfishness, go to confirm 
the statements previously made as to the active nature of both 
the one and the other. Certainly there can be no benevolence 
or selfishness which is not active. A passive benevolence, a 
passive selfishnesss, is a contradiction in terms. 



340 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUEE XXX. 

THE INTRODUCTION OF SIN. 

From very ancient times, the human mind has been exercised 
with inquiries and theories as to the origin of evil. As long 
ago as the days of the prophets, the Persian magi believed in 
the existence of two opposite divinities, the god of light and the 
god of darkness ; the author of good and the author of evil. It 
was to contradict this error that God says, by the Prophet Isaiah, 
in the same chapter in which he speaks of Cyrus the Persian by 
name, and predicts his conquest of Babylon : "lam the Lord, 
and there is none else. There is no God beside me. I form the 
light and create darkness ; I make peace and create evil ; I the 
Lord do all these things " (Isa. xlv. 7). 

The old Greek philosophers had their speculations and 
hypotheses on the same subject. It was the difficulties of it, 
among other things, which led Epicurus into atheism. His mode 
of reasoning was as follows : " God either has the will, but not 
the power, to prevent evil ; or he has the power, but not the 
will ; or he has neither the power nor the will. If he has the 
will, but not the power, he is impotent, which cannot be true of 
God. If he has the power, but not the will, he is malignant, 
which is equally foreign from God. If he has neither the will 
nor the power, he is both malignant and impotent, and therefore 
is not God. If he has both the will and the power, which alone 
harmonizes with the idea of God, whence then is evil? and why 
doth he not remove it ? " * 

The Oriental or Gnostic philosophy is of very ancient origin. 
It had infected the minds of a portion of the Jewish nation 
previous to the coming of Christ. It began to threaten and to 
corrupt the Christian community, even under the ministry of 

* In Lactantius de Ira Dei. Cap. 13. 



THE INTRODUCTION OF SIN. 341 

the apostles. The root of most of the Gnostic errors lay in the 
question as to the origin of evil. These philosophers believed 
matter to be essentially evil, and the source of all the evils that 
exist. Hence, they did not regard this material world as the 
work of a good being, but of some evil and inferior divinity. 
Their views of matter led them to practise " a voluntary humil- 
ity and neglecting of the body " (Col. ii. 23). They also denied 
the resurrection of the body, believing in none but a spiritual 
resurrection, and that in respect to Christians this was " past 
already" (2 Tim. ii. 18). They denied, too (or a portion of 
them did) that our Saviour had a real body, insisting that he 
lived and died and rose again only in appearance. It was this 
form of the error which led the Apostle John to insist so stren- 
uously that Jesus Christ had " come in the flesh" and that he had 
not only seen but "handled the Word of life" (1 John i. 1 ; 
iv. 2) . These Gnostic errors which troubled the church under 
various forms for the first two or three hundred years, all had 
a common character and origin. They arose from the restless 
inquiries of the human mind as to the origin of evil. 

The Manichean heresy originated in the same vexed question, 
and was a mingling of the Persian dualism with Christian Gnos- 
ticism. The system of Manes rested on the assumption of two 
everlasting kingdoms, coexisting and bordering on each other, — 
the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness, — the former 
under the dominion of God, the latter under the dominion of 
Hyle, or matter. Manes threw away the Old Testament 
entirely, and the greater portion of the New, declaring himself 
to be the Paraclete, the promised Comforter from heaven. 

There were those in the early church who, from their dread 
of Gnosticism, were led into error in the opposite direction. 
They regarded all sin among men as the fruit of demoniacal 
agency. This, with other things, led to the general practice 
of exorcism. Before any were baptized and admitted to the 
church, their evil spirits must be ejected. 

I have presented these historical facts for the purpose of 
showing in one view how much and how long the human mind 
has been laboring on the question as to the origin of evil. Nor 
is this at all wonderful. The question is a difficult one, — per- 



342 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

haps the most difficult that ever tasked the ingenuity of man. 
Believing as we do in the existence of one God, — a being of 
infinite wisdom, power, and goodness, — it would not be difficult 
to demonstrate, if we had no facts to guide and correct our rea- 
sonings, that there could be no such thing as sin or misery in 
the universe. For is not God wise enough so to form his plans 
as to secure universal holiness and happiness ? Is he not good 
enough to prefer such a plan as this ? And has he not power 
enough to execute it? How, then, can there be sin, or misery, 
or evil of any kind, under the government of the Supreme 
Being? This would seem to be a plain moral demonstration. 
And yet, when we rise from it and look about us, we find this 
to be a sinful and a miserable world, — w a vale of tears and a 
field of blood." 

There are some, we know, who would cut the knot, instead 
of untying it. They deny the existence of evil altogether. 
" There is that, to be sure, which we call evil ; but it is impossi- 
ble that there should be any real sin or wrong anywhere. One 
man does the will of God as much as another, and in the sight 
of God all are good alike." It is remarkable that men of this 
stamp are as quick to resent personal affronts and injuries as 
any others. And a fit of the colic or the gout might soon satisfy 
them that suffering was more than a name. 

The principal questions which now agitate the church in 
respect to the introduction of sin, are the two following : — 

1. Did sin enter the universe because God was not able to 
prevent it, in consistency with the free agency of his creatures ? 
Or, 

2. Did sin enter because God — perceiving that he could over- 
rule its existence for a greater good — was pleased to permit it ? 

There may be speculatists, here and there, who come not 
under either of these categories. There may be those who say 
that sin entered the universe through the agency of creatures 
exclusively, — that God had nothing to do with it. But this is 
to deny the universal providence of God, and contradict a thou- 
sand declarations of the Bible. There may be others who go 
to the other extreme and say, that sin was introduced, not by 
the permission of God, but by direct causation, " I form the 



THE INTRODUCTION OF SIN. 343 

light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the 
Lord do all these things." Bnt how does God " create evil " ? 
By a special exercise of power, such as he put forth when he 
created the world? Or is he said to cause, to create, that which 
comes to pass in the regular course of his providence, and 
which he puts forth no special effort to prevent ? It is in this 
latter sense, undoubtedly, that God is sometimes said in the 
Scriptures to harden the hearts of men, and to create evil. 
Pursuing the courses they do, men's hearts become hard under 
the providence of God, and nothing but a miracle could prevent 
it. Another phraseology, however, is very often used in the 
Bible, implying a sufferance of evil, a permission of it, rather 
than a direct causation. " Who in times past suffered all na- 
tions to walk in their own way " (Acts xiv. 16) . "I gave them 
up to their own hearts' lusts" (Ps. lxxxi. 12). He "gave them 
over to a reprobate mind" (Rom. i. 28). 

Setting aside these extremists, therefore, we come back to the 
two questions above propounded : Did sin enter the universe 
because God was not able to prevent it, in consistency with the 
free agency of his creatures ? Or, did it enter because God — 
perceiving that he could overrule its existence for a greater 
good — was pleased to permit it? The first of these questions 
has been answered in the affirmative by Arminian writers gen- 
erally/and by some Universalists and infidels.* It has been 
answered in the negative by Calvinists, almost without an ex- 
ception ; who, consequently, have been thrown upon the other 
hypothesis, in accounting for the introduction of sin. j 

* Thus Heylin, an Arminian of the seventeenth century, says : " God neither did de- 
cree sin, as a means or method of which he could make use, nor did he so much as 
permit it, in the strict sense of the word, considering that he that doth permit, having 
poicer to hinder, is guilty of the evil that doth follow on it." — Sum. of Chris. Theol. p. 86. 

.The Chevalier Ramsey, a Universalist says: "God did not certainly know that his 
creatures would fall ; and if he had known it, he could not have hindered it, consistently 
with then free agency." 

In Bellamy's Works, first edition, vol. ii. p. 106, Mr. Chubb argues that God 
could not have prevented moral evil, but by " preventing himself from making such 
creatures as we are." Rousseau says : " Man, be patient. The evils you suffer are a 
necessary effect of nature. The eternal and beneficent Being would have been glad to 
exempt you from them. The reason why he has not done better is, that he could not." — 
Letter to Voltaire. 

t Calvin. — " That is not done without God's will, which yet is contrary to his will ; 
because it would not be done if he did not permit it. And this permission is not invol- 



344 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

With regard to the first of the theories here proposed, viz., 
God's inability to exclude sin, it is plain that its existence, on 
this ground, involves no mystery. The iutroduction of sin into 
the universe has commonly been regarded as a dark and myste- 
rious event? But what mystery in the taking place of that 
which God could not prevent? What mystery in the entrance 
of that into his dominions, to exclude which had been in the 
nature of things impossible ? 

Again ; on this ground there is no propriety in speaking of 
God's permission of sin. It has been customary in all ages for 
Orthodox ministers to use this phraseology. But on the theory 
we are considering, there is no propriety in it. Why tell of 
God's permitting that which, in the circumstances of the case, 
he had no power to prevent? As well might we be said to 
permit the rising or the setting of the sun, or the return of 
winter and summer in their seasons. 

untary, but voluntary. Nor would his goodness permit the perpetration of any evil, 
unless his omnipotence were able even from evil to educe good."— Institutes, hook i. 
chap. 18, sect. 3. 

Archbishop Usher.—" God is said to permit sin, because he could, by his grace, 
hinder and prevent sin, that none should be committed." — Sum. and Substance of the 
Chris. Religion, p. 52. 

Charnock.— " Sin entered the world, either God willing the permission of it, or not 
willing the permission of it. The latter cannot be said; for then the creature is more 
powerful than God, and can do that which God will not permit. God can, if he be 
pleased, banish all sin in a moment out of the world. He could have prevented the revolt 
of angels, and the fall of man. They did not sin, whether he would or no." — Works, folio 
edition, vol. i. p. 520. 

Bates.— " The divine power could have preserved man in his integrity, either by lay- 
ing a restraint on the apostate angels, that they should never have made an attempt upon 
him, or by keeping the understanding waking and vigilant to discover the danger of the 
temptation, and by fortifying the will and rendering it impenetrable to the fiery darts 
of Satan without any prejudice to its freedom."— Works, vol. i. p. 212. 

John Howe. — " God made man upright ; but he must needs fall to his own inventions 
to mend it, and try if he could not make to himself a better state than God had made 
for him. It was never to be expected from the divine goodness that he should by 
almighty, extraordinary power have prevented this ; "—necessarily implying that God 
could have prevented it.— Works, vol. vii. p. 120. 

Ridglet. — " God might have prevented the first entrance of sin into the world, by his 
immediate interposure, and so have kept man upright as well as made him so. Yet let 
it be considered that he was not obliged to do this, and therefore might, without any 
reflection on his holiness, leave an innocent creature to the conduct of his own will."— 
Body of Divinity, vol. i. p. 161. 

Dr. Gill.—" God could have kept the serpent out of the garden, and he could have 
hindered the temptation from having any influence upon our first parents ; but this he 
did not ; nor did he withhold Adam from sinning ; which he could have done" — Body of 
Divinity, p. 464. 



THE INTRODUCTION OF SIN. 345 

Dr. Dwight (in a passage just quoted in a note) infers God's 
ability to preserve Adam in innocence, from the fact that he has 
hitherto kept the elect angels from sin, and will keep them and 
the glorified saints in heaven forever. And the argument we 
think a sound one. But there is a stronger argument than this, 
— an argument based on the conversion of sinners. If God 
can overcome the innate depravity of the natural heart; can 
turn back the perverted currents of the ruined soul, — in other 
words, can convert a sinner, — and yet do nothing inconsistent 
with his free agency ; surely, it might seem, he could preserve 
a sinless being in its integrity, or all sinless beings, and yet 
they be free. If he can recover lost souls without infringing 
upon their freedom, can he not keep such as are not lost? If he 
can do the greater, must he not be able to perform the less? 

It is said, indeed, that the universe, as it was when sin first 
entered it, did not supply motive enough to enable the Almighty 
to keep the first transgressors from sin. God needed the motives 

President Willard. — " God could have assisted Adam, and kept himj' but he did 
not." — Body of Divinity, p. 179. 

President Edwards. — " Objectors may say that God cannot always prevent men's 
sins, unless he act contrary to the free nature of the subject, or without destroying men's 
liberty. But will they deny that an omnipotent and infinitely wise God could possibly 
invent and set before men such strong motives to obedience, and have kept them before 
them in such manner as should have influenced all mankind to continue in their obe- 
dience, as the elect angels have done, without destroying their liberty ? "—Decrees and 
Election, sect. 19. 

It would be superfluous to quote here from Drs. Bellamy and Hopkins, both of whom 
wrote and published Discourses on " The Wisdom of God in the Permission of Sin," 
which are contained in their Works. 

Dr. Dwight. — " God has actually preserved some of the angels from falling, and will 
preserve the spirits of just men made perfect ; and this has been and will be done, without 
infringing at all on their moral agency. Of course he could just as easily have preserved 
Adam from falling, without infringing on his moral agency." — Theology, vol. i. p. 523. 

Dr. Knapp. — " God foresaw the existence of evil, and permits it; but so far as it is 
evil, he can never have pleasure in it, or himself promote or favor it. He has admitted 
it into his general plan, because he can make it, in connection with other things, the 
means of a good, which, without it, either could not be effected at all, or at least not so 
well, as by its being permitted." — Theology, vol. i. p. 523. 

Dr. Payson — " Why God should permit angels or men to fall, we cannot tell. That 
he did permit them to fall is certain ; because, had he thought proper, he could doubtless 
have prevented their apostasy." — Sermons, vol. i. p. 43. 

Dr. Lyman Beecher. — " God loves holiness, and he abhors sin, and was able to prevent 
its existence. He could have forborne to create whom he foresaw would rebel, or he was 
able to keep them from falling. But he did not do it. Abhorring sin with all his heart, 
and able to keep it out of his dominions, he permitted it to enter." — Sermon at the Funeral 
of Obookiah, p. 5. 

44 



346 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

arising from the fall and ruin of a portion of his creatures, to 
enable him to sustain the r§st. But we ask, in reply : Are not 
the motives in favor of holiness always intrinsically stronger 
than those in favor of sin ? In other words, Are there not always 
stronger and better reasons for doing right than for doing wrong ? 
Can any sober person doubt this? Hence, that the motives for 
the right may appear the stronger, may strike the mind with 
the greatest force, and consequently prevail, it is only necessary 
that the mind be prepared to receive them, and that they be 
exhibited in their true light. And could, not God have done all 
this for his creatures — done it under any supposable circum- 
stances — without encroaching upon their freedom? Could he 
not have kept them from ignorance, prejudice, and' bias ; caused 
them to see things in their proper light, and to feel the due force 
of them ; and thus have kept them from falling into sin? 

The theory that God could not, by the presentation of motives, 
have kept his creatures from falling into sin, is inconsistent- with 
itself. According to this theory, the beings who first fell, fell 
from the want of motives to sustain them. The universe as it 
then was did not furnish motives sufficient to enable the Almighty 
to hold them up. And yet, on the same theory, in the very act 
of their fall they overcame such powerful motives, and broke 
through so many and endearing obligations, as to render them- 
selves hopelessly guilty and deserving of eternal condemnation. 
The theory is therefore inconsistent with itself. If one part of 
it is true, the other cannot be. If the angels fell through such 
a deficiency of motive that it was not possible even for the 
Almighty to sustain them, it would seem that they could not be 
very criminal for their transgression. On the other hand, if 
their fall was exceedingly criminal,— so criminal as justly to 
expose them to eternal condemnation (which all but the Univer- 
salists believe) , — then they must have resisted and overcome a 
vast amount of motive, — motives enough, surely, had they been 
set home by accompanying divine influences, to have restrained 
them effectually from sin. 

But we need not pursue this argument further. The suppo- 
sition that God could not have kept the original transgressors 
of his law from sin without destroying their freedom, is incon- 



THE INTRODUCTION OF SIN. 347 

sistent with his divine perfections : it is inconsistent with the 
plain declarations of Scripture ; it is inconsistent with his entire 
providential control over the moral world. In short, it is in- 
consistent with his very Godhead, and should never be admitted 
by those who look up to him as the Almighty Sovereign of the 
world. 

It follows, then, that God could have excluded sin from his 
dominions, but did not. He, without doubt, afforded to the 
original transgressors all that light and support which were 
necessary, in order to continue their free moral agency and 
make them responsible ; but those special restraints which, in a 
season of temptation he might have afforded, and which were 
needed to hold them back from sin, he, for wise reasons, with- 
held. In other words, he permitted them to sin. Why? When 
he might have excluded sin forever from his dominions, why 
did he suffer it to enter ? 

Not, certainly, because he loves it ; for he hates it with a 
perfect hatred. 

Not because he felt indifferent in regard to it ; for in such a 
case he could not have been indifferent. 

Neither because sin is a direct means of good, or has any 
tendency to good ; for all its tendencies are the other way. 

I know not how to answer the question before us but by fall- 
ing back on the second of the theories suggested above : God 
permitted sin to enter his dominions, because he saw that he 
could so turn it against itself as to make it the occasion of an 
overbalancing amount of good, — because he saw that, by over- 
ruling, counteracting, and crushing it, and redeeming a portion 
of his creatures from it, he could make a brighter exhibition of 
his glory, and better promote the good of the universe, than 
would be possible in any other way. Without sin, there could 
have been no redemption. The great work of redeeming mercy 
had not been needed, and could never have been known ; and 
the superior lustre of the divine character, beaming forth from 
that noble work, had been shut out from the view of creatures 
forever. 

God, we are told, hath made all things for himself. With 
him, his own glory — involving, as it does, the highest good of 



348 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

the universe — is, as it should be, the grand object. If, there- 
fore, God saw in eternity that he could best glorify himself in 
redemption, — and there could have been no redemption with- 
out sin,— then a sufficient reason is furnished for the permission 
of sin. 

That the work of redemption is God's best and noblest work, 
in that it best exhibits his character, and sheds forth the efful- 
gence of his glory, there can be no doubt. As much as this is 
intimated in the song of the angels at the birth of Christ. 
" Glory to God in the highest" in that there is " peace on earth 
and good will towards men" (Luke ii. 14). The other works 
of God are not, indeed, unworthy of him, nor are they silent 
in showing forth his praise. " The heavens declare the glory 
of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork." The 
works of creation and providence display the infinite wisdom of 
God, his mighty power, and his general goodness ; and before 
redemption was revealed, the flames of the pit below had flashed 
upon the universe the terrors of his justice. But, as yet, the 
heart of the Deity had not been opened. His mercy, his ten- 
derness, his compassion, his long-suffering, his forbearance, 
towards self-destroyed and self-destroying enemies, had not 
been exhibited. It was left for the work of redemption to do 
this, and thus to spread abroad the glory of the divine character 
forever. 

It is reasonable to suppose that the holiness and happiness of 
heavenly beings are in proportion to their knowledge of the 
divine perfections and character. The more they know of God, 
the more they love him ; and the more they know and love him, 
the more they enjoy him. But, if this be so, who can estimate 
how much more the blessed inhabitants of heaven know of the 
character of God, and how much more they love and enjoy him, 
in consequence of redemption? Who can estimate the vast 
increase of happiness in heaven, — an increase which in the end 
may far overbalance all the miseries which sin has ever occa- 
sioned, or ever will, in consequence of redemption? 

We are told by our Saviour that there is "joy in heaven over 
one sinner that repenteth, more than over .ninety and nine just 
persons who need no repentance" (Luke xv. 7). We learn 



THE INTRODUCTION OF SIN. 349 

from this statement that the joy of heaven is increased ninety- 
nine times and more — how much more we know not — by the 
repentance of a sinner, beyond what it would have been had 
there been no sin. In this proportion it is easy to see that the 
existence of sin may be an ultimate gain to the universe ; and 
consequently that God had the best reasons for permitting it. 

That God may in the end overrule the existence of sin, and 
of all sin, for an overbalancing amount of good, is evident from 
the consideration that we often see him overruling particular 
sins in this way in the present life. Take, for example, the sin 
of Joseph's brethren in selling him into Egypt. "Ye thought 
evil against me, but God meant it for good; " and he overruled 
it for a greater good. Take the sin of Saul, in persecuting 
David. But for these wicked persecutions the churdi of God 
had never had many of the devoutest, sweetest, and most in- 
structive of the Psalms. The same may be said of the sin of 
Pharaoh, in refusing to let God's people go ; of the sin of Haman, 
in plotting against the Jews ; and of the sin of those who cruci- 
fied the Saviour. The same, too, may be said of the sin of 
Henry VIII. in wishing to repudiate his wife ; and of the sin 
of Queen Elizabeth and her successors, in persecuting the Puri- 
tans. The former sin was overruled for the introduction of the 
Protestant Reformation into England ; the latter, for the settle- 
ment of this country by the pious Pilgrims. But if God often 
does, in this life, overrule particular sins for a greater good, 
then he may overrule all the sin which he permits to exist in the 
same way ; and the conclusion is a reasonable one that he will. 
He will bring light out of darkness and good out of evil. He 
will cause the wrath and wickedness of man to praise him, and 
the remainder of wrath he will restrain. 



Objections. 

1. It has been often said, that in taking this view of the sub- 
ject we represent God as "doing evil that good may come." 
But we do not represent God as doing evil at all. He acts from 
the best motives in the permission of sin. He does what the 
greatest good of the whole requires. So far from doing evil 



350 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY; 

that good may come, he does good that good may come. He 
does that which is good, in a particular way, that a greater good 
may result, in another way. 

2. It has been said that, on the ground we have taken, sin is 
a necessary means of the greatest good. But sin is not a means 
of good at all. Means is a relative term, standing connected 
with some end, and haviug a tendency, an adaptedness, to pro- 
mote that end. But sin has no tendency to result in good. All 
its tendencies are the other way. And it is only by overruling 
and reverting its evil tendeucies, by counteracting and crushing 
it, and redeeming its victims from it, that sin becomes the 
necessary occasion in providence — not a means — of good to the 
universe and glory of God. 

3. It has been even said that the view we have taken makes 
sin a good thing. But no representation, certainly, could be 
more false or unfounded. We represent sin as the worst of all 
things, — so base in itself and so ruinous in its tendencies that 
the Son of God must die to expiate it, and infinite grace and 
mercy are manifested in redeeming its victims from its power. 
A good thing could not stand in the place of sin and be made 
the occasion, as sin is, of showing forth redeeming grace and 
dying love. We should not need to be redeemed from a good 
thing. The whole view we have taken exhibits sin as the great- 
est of all evils, — as that but for which the Son of God need not 
have died, and redeeming mercy had never been displayed. 

4. After all, it will be said, that the view we have taken does 
furnish some excuse, some apology for sin. But so the matter 
does not seem to us ; and that the question may be fairly tested, 
let us apply it to some of those cases in which we know that God 
has overruled particular acts of sin for good. The murderers of 
our Lord, for example ; does it furnish any excuse for them, 
that God made their sin the occasion of so much blessing to the 
world? Who thanks the Jews, or the Romans, for what they 
did in this matter ? Who does not see that they were precisely 
as guilty and as deserving of punishment, as though no good had 
resulted from their murderous deed ? And who thanks the per- 
secutors of the Pilgrims for driving them out of England, and 
compelling them to transport themselves to this Western world ? 



THE INTRODUCTION OF SIN. 351 

Who thanks the emissaries of Charles II. for shutting up John 
Bunyan in Bedford jail, where he had leisure, which otherwise 
he never would have taken, for composing his immortal Pilgrim's 
Progress ? And so of every other case. The fact that God will 
bring good out of all the evil which he permits furnishes not 
the shadow of an apology for such evil. No thanks in any 
case to the evil-doer, but all praise to that wonder-working 
providence of God, which can defeat the cruel designs of his 
enemies, and turn that into a blessing which they intended for 
"a curse. 

Inferences. 

1. It follows from this discussion, that the great plan of provi- 
dence which God formed in eternity, and which he is carrying 
into effect in time, is the best conceivable. Some persons think 
it the best one practicable, but not the best conceivable. God 
can conceive of something a great deal better, — of a plan involv- 
ing all the good of the present sj^stem, with none of its evils ; 
but he did not adopt it for the very good reason that he could 
not accomplish it. But we hold that the present system of provi- 
dence and grace, which Gocl in eternity adopted, and which he 
is carrying into effect, — including the existence of sin and 
redemption, — is the best which infinite wisdom could conceive; 
involving the brightest and most glorious exhibition of all the 
divine perfections and attributes, and the highest good of the 
intelligent universe as a whole. It is thought that God can con- 
ceive of a better system than the present, since he can conceive 
of one that shall embrace all the good of the existing system with 
none of its evils. But how can God conceive of all the blessings 
flowing from redemption, and yet there be no redemption? And 
certainly there could be no redemption had there been no sin to 
atone for, — no sinners to redeem. 

2. If the present system is the best, on the whole, which infinite 
wisdom could conceive or devise, then we may suppose that God 
rests in it ivith entire satisfaction. To be sure it involves evils 
many and great ; but then these are but incidental evils, — inci- 
dental in some way to the greatest good. It involves much 
which, in itself considered, a benevolent God cannot contemplate 



352 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

without pain ; but then this pain, whatever it may be, is no more 
than incidental pain, — incidental in some way to his own high- 
est happiness. And this is the only view of the case which is at 
all consistent with the infinite blessedness of the Supreme Being. 
To suppose him to be under the dreadful necessity of seeing and 
suffering a vast amount of evil which he is unable to prevent, 
and of doing for the universe, not the best that he would, but 
only the best that he can, is obviously degrading to the Supreme 
Being, and is not at all consistent with that infinite and eternal 
blessedness which is ascribed to him in the Scriptures. 



MAN BEFORE THE EAEL. 353 



LECTUEE XXXI. 

MAN BEFORE THE FALL. 

The Scriptures inform us that, after the creation of the world 
and its inferior inhabitants, man was made in the image of God, 
— innocent and happy, perfect in his kind, and blessed with the 
smiles of indulgent Heaven. He soon fell from his happy state, 
and forfeited the divine favor ; but it will be necessary to a 
right understanding of some connected truths, to inquire into 
his situation previous to the fall. And it may be observed, — 

1. That, previous to the fall, man had the same faculties, 
both of body and mind, that he now has. This is evident, since 
otherwise he would not have been a man. He would not have 
possessed human nature, or have been a human being. The 
race to which we now belong is a race of men, and possesses 
all the faculties of men. If Adam possessed other or different 
faculties he must have belonged to some other race of creatures. 
Men now have all the faculties which are necessary to constitute 
them moral agents, and Adam, in his best estate, needed no 
more. We cannot conceive that other faculties, in kind, would 
have been of the least service to him, even if they had been 
bestowed. Men now have noble mental faculties, — faculties 
corresponding in kind, to those of their Creator ; so that in 
respect to faculties they may still be said to bear his image. 
(See Gen. ix. 6 ; 1 Cor. xi. 7.) Men have lost the moral image 
of God, but they are represented as retaining that natural divine 
image in which they were at first created. They have ceased to 
be holy like God, — have ceased to use their faculties as God 
uses his ; but they have not lost any of their faculties by the fall. 
They still possess the same natural ability to know and do their 
duty, — the same free responsible agency, which they did before. 

45 



354 , CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

We do not say that the faculties of man are in the same state 
now that they were before the fall, or the same that they would 
have been in if he had never fallen. Without doubt, they are 
deteriorated, under the blighting and stupefying influence of sin. 
The understanding is enfeebled and darkened ; the sensibilities 
are weakened and deranged; conscience has, in a measure, lost 
its power. Our faculties may have been all of them more or 
less impaired. Still, it does not appear that any of them have 
been lost. In number and kind they remain the same that they 
were in Paradise. 

2. Previous to the fall, Adam was favored with all the knowl- 
edge that was necessary for him in his circumstances. He was 
<not an angel, on the one hand, nor was he an infant or a savage, 
in point of knowledge, on the other. He had not acquired all 
his knowledge as we do, by the slow processes of experience 
and observation. He needed it too early to have room for that. 
Such knowledge as was needful for him seems to have been im- 
parted directly by inspiration or revelation. At any rate, it was 
taught him by his Creator. In this way, he received a knowl- 
edge of the rudiments and the structure of language. He was 
made acquainted with some of the arts, and with the more neces- 
sary articles of food. He was qualified to give names to the 
different animals. He was instructed to dress the garden, and 
to keep it. He knew the difference between right and wrong ; 
knew what was required of him, and what forbidden ; and 
knew something as to the results both of obedience and dis- 
obedience. 

3. Previous to the fall, man was a subject, as he now is, of the 
Divine Government. He was subject to law, and under law. 
Being a free moral agent, it was proper and right he should be. 
He was subject, without any doubt, to the great law of love, — 
a law which binds heaven and earth ; which reaches to the 
consciences of moral beings, wherever they exist. Our first 
parents were subject to all those laws — sometimes called natu- 
ral — which are enforced by reason and conscience, and do not 
require to be positively enjoined. They were not, indeed, in 
circumstances to transgress some of these laws. They could not 
steal or covet, since all that they saw was their own. They 



MAN BEFORE THE FALL. 355 

could not honor their father or mother, for they had none. And 
persons now are not unfrequently in circumstances where they 
cannot transgress some divine laws. Yet this does not prove 
that they are not subject to them. Previous to the fall, man 
was subject, also, to some positive injunctions. He w T as doubtless 
commanded to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. He 
was commanded to dress the garden of Eden and to keep it. 
And what is of more importance for us to know, he was com- 
manded not to eat of the fruit of " the tree of knowledge of 
good and evil," which stood in the midst of the garden. He 
may have been subject to other positive precepts which, in the 
brief history of his happy state, have not been recorded. 

4. Our first parents before the fall v?qyq perfectly holy. They 
perfectly obeyed the great law of love, and every other divine 
command of which they had any knowledge. Their thoughts, 
their affections, their words, their actions, all were in perfect 
harmony with the dictates of conscience and the will of Heaven. 

5. Their is much reason to believe that our first parents, in 
Paradise, were on trial. It seems to be a part of the settled 
plan of God to try his intelligent creatures, before fixing them 
in their final state. The angels were once on trial, during 
which a part of them remained steadfast, and a part fell. The 
human race in this world are now on trial ; and we have good 
reason to believe that, before their fall, our first parents had a 
season of probation. Their trial was, indeed, very different from 
that of their posterity. We are on trial to see if we will turn 
from our sins. They were on trial to see if they would continue 
holy. The issue of our trial is, whether we shall repent and be 
forgiven and restored. The issue of theirs was, whether they 
should fall and be rejected. 

If our first parents had persevered in holiness for a limited 
time, we have reason to believe that they would have been con- 
firmed in holiness, and would have been immortal. Soul and 
body would never have been separated. They might have been 
translated, as Enoch was, but it is not at all likely that they 
would ever have died. Temporal dissolution, Ave know, is a 
fruit of sin (Rom. v. 12). But if, during their probation, our 
first parents transgressed any of the laws to which they were 



356 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

subject, then they would lose their spiritual life, and become 
instantly liable to suffer the penalty of the broken law, which is 
eternal deaths — the eternal destruction of soul and body in hell. 
The prominence given in the narrative to the law, respecting 
the forbidden fruit, is probably owing to the fact that this law 
was first broken ; — that by this the apostasy was introduced. 
Had Adam first broken either of the other laws of God, doubt- 
less the same prominence would have been given to that, aud 
the same consequences would have ensued. 

6. The consequences of the trial of our first parents did not 
terminate with themselves. The character and condition of 
their posterity were in like manner involved. If they persevered 
in holiness to the end of their trial, their descendants would also 
be holy ; but if they fell within the space allotted them, their 
posterity would commence their moral existence sinners. Such 
were the purposes of God respecting them, as these have since 
been revealed in his word, and disclosed in his providential 
dispensations ; but whether they were revealed to our first 
parents at the time, may be well doubted. They knew, in the 
general, what God required of them. They knew with what 
they were threatened, in case of transgression. And for all the 
purposes of trial, this was enough. To have disclosed to them 
(if it were possible) the endless train of consequences to issue 
from their fall, might have defeated their trial altogether. It 
might have been sufficient to overwhelm them. 

7. We come now to inquire into the nature of the threaten- 
ing, recorded in the second chapter of Genesis : " In the day 
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." What is the 
death here intended? Is it temporal death, or spiritual death, 
or eternal death ? Or does it include them all ? 

In replying to these questions, let it be remarked, that the 
threatening to our first parents before they fell, must not be 
confounded with the consequences of their fall. An endless 
train of evils has resulted from the fall, reaching not only to our 
first parents, but to their posterity forever. Indeed, an endless 
train of blessings has flowed, indirectly and consequentially, 
from the fall, including all the blessings of redemption. But it 
would be preposterous to regard all these consequences, one 



MAN BEFOKE THE FALL. 357 

way and the other, as included in the original threatening to 
Adam. We must distinguish therefore, as I said, between the 
simple threatening and the consequences of the transgression. 

In order to understand the threatening referred to, we must 
bear in mind (what has been before stated) that our first parents 
in Paradise were under law,— mere law. The precepts enjoined 
on them were those of the law. The rewards which they enjoyed 
and anticipated were those of law, — dispensed to them, and to 
be dispensed, on the ground of law. It is reasonable to sup- 
pose, therefore, that the threatening under consideration was 
one of law. In other words, our first parents were threatened, 
in case of transgression, with the proper penally of the divine 
law. The passage including the threatening is parallel to those 
in which it is said : " The soul that sinneth, it shall die." " The 
wages of sin is death." As our first parents were under a dis- 
pensation of law, they were threatened, in case of transgression, 
with the proper penalty of the law ; the same that was inflicted 
on the sinning angels, — eternal death. This would include, 
of course, spiritual death, — a being "dead in trespasses and 
sins ; " since none will suffer the pains of eternal death who are 
not in a state of spiritual death; or who, in other words, are 
not entirely sinful. 

Most evangelical Christians regard the threatening before us 
as including spiritual and eternal death ; and some represent it 
as including also temporal death. But manifestly, if it includes 
eternal death, it cannot include temporal death ; since the two 
ideas are incompatible. Temporal death is a dissolution of the 
connection between soul and body ; eternal death is the destruc- 
tion of soul and body in hell. Suppose, then, eternal death to 
have been included in the threatening, and to have been imme- 
diately executed — as it must have been but for the intervention 
of the gospel — upon the transgressors. There would have been 
no room, in that case, for temporal death. It could not possibly 
have ensued. Soul and body must have gone to destruction 
together, and could not have been separated. 

There is another consideration going to show the truth of what 
has been stated. Christ came into the world to redeem his 
people from the curse of the divine law, — that curse which 



358 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

hangs over every sinner, and was denounced upon Adam in 
case he fell into sin. But Christ does not redeem his people 
from temporal death. They still suffer that. It follows that 
temporal death makes no part of the proper penalty, of the law, 
— that penalty which was originally denounced upon our first 
parents. 

Temporal death, from the very nature of it, belongs not to 
the dispensation of law, but to that of grace. It is indeed a 
bitter fruit of sin ; but it is such fruit as can be tasted only 
under a dispensation of grace. Accordingly, the first intimation 
which we have in the Scriptures of temporal death is found 
subsequent to the promise of a Saviour. It was in connection 
with the great gospel promise, but subsequent to it, that God 
said to our first parents : " Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt 
thou return" (Gen. iii. 19). 

It may be objected to what has Been said, that eternal death 
was not executed upon our first parents in the day of their trans- 
gression, — perhaps never was. But why was not eternal death 
immediately executed? Not because it was not threatened, — 
but because a dispensation of mercy supervened, and the stroke 
of justice was suspended, to make room for it. A Saviour was 
promised, and man, who had failed on the trial whether he 
would obey and be happy, was now put upon another trial ; viz., 
whether he would repent and be forgiven, —whether he would 
flee to the promised Deliverer, trust in him, and be saved. 

We see from what has been said that, in some respects, our 
state resembles that of our first parents ; while, in other impor- 
tant respects, there is a difference. We are, as Adam was, 
human beings, — free, moral, accountable agents, — possessing 
all the faculties' that he possessed, — all that are requisite in 
order to moral agency. We are, as Adam was, subjects of the 
divine government, and on probation under that government. 
We are subject to essentially the same law that was imposed 
upon Aclam, — the great law of love; and are bound, as he 
was, to obey it. Still, our faculties are not in the same pure 
and perfect state with those of Adam before he fell ; nor do we 
sustain the same relations to the divine government ; nor are 
we placed on the same kind of trial. And though we are 



MAN BEFORE THE FALL. 359 

subject to essentially the same law as Adam, still our foundation 
of hope is not the same. His hope, so long as he continued 
obedient, was from the law. As sinners, we have failed on 
this ground, and must build all our hope* upon the Saviour. 

The grand difference between Adam in Paradise and his pos- 
terity, and that from which all other differences flow, is, that he 
was perfectly holy, while they, in their state of nature, are 
entirely sinful. He was the friend of God, but they are his 
enemies. As the friend of God, Adam in Paradise was perfectly 
happy ; while his posterity, being sinners, are exposed to various 
miseries in this life, and, unless they repent and embrace the 
gospel, to eternal destruction in the life to come. 



360 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XXXII. 

THE TEMPTATION AND FALL OF MAN. 

In our last Lecture, we considered man in his primitive, holy 
and happy state. He was made in the image of God, intelligent 
and free, a proper subject of moral government, and was placed 
at once under the law and the government of God. He was 
subject to the great law of love, and to all those outward exem- 
plifications of it which are discoverable by the light of reason 
and nature. He was subject, also, to a few plain, positive pre- 
cepts. He was to dress the garden of Eden, and to keep it. He 
was to observe and sanctify the Sabbath ; and from one of the 
trees of the garden — the tree of knowledge of good and evil — 
he was to abstain entirely, under penalty of eternal death. . 

This injunction seems to have been laid upon our first parents, 
more especially for their trial. They were on trial to see whether 
they would keep all the commands of God, but more especially 
this ; since this was a plain, positive command, the import of 
which they could not misunderstand, and the reasons of which, 
probably, they did not fully comprehend ; so that obedience to 
it would be a suitable trial of their faith as well as of their moral 
strength. The result of their probation we too well know. The 
serpent persuaded the woman, and she persuaded her husband, 
to '" eat of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste brought death 
into the world, and all our woe." Several questions arise here 
which demand consideration. 

1. What are we to understand by the serpent, who is said to 
have beguiled Eve ? Who was he ? What was he ? That he 
was an animal of the serpent kind, and not (as some have sup- 
posed) a baboon or a monkey, is indubitable. He is expressly 
called ocpig, a serpent, by the Apostle Paul : "I fear lest, by any 



THE TEMPTATION AND FALL OF MAN. .361 

means, as the serpent beguiled Eve, through his subtilty, so your 
mind should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" 
(2 Cor. xi. 3). He probably had other means of locomotion 
than what serpents now have, — feet, or wings, or perhaps both, 
— of which he was divested, in consequence of his assault upon 
our unsuspecting first parents. Still he was a. species of serpent. 

And yet he was not a mere serpent. He displayed an artifice, 
a cunning subtilty, a malice, of which no mere brute animal was 
ever capable. His body, his faculties, were, for the time, pos- 
sessed by what the Apostle John calls " that old serpent, the 
Devil, and Satan" (Rev. xii. 9). Devils sometimes possessed 
the bodies of animals, as well as of men, in the time of our Sav- 
iour. A legion of them once entered into a herd of swine, who, 
in consequence, ran violently down a steep place into the sea, 
and were drowned (Luke viii. 33). That the devil was the 
real agent in deceiving our first mother and drawing her into 
sin, is evident from the nature of the case, and is implied in 
many Scriptures. Accordingly, the curse pronounced upon the 
serpent extended farther than to the literal animal. It reached 
to " that old serpent, the devil," and portended the victory which 
our Saviour was to achieve over him upon the cross. 

2. Our second inquiry relates to the speaking of the serpent. 
Did he literally speak to the woman? If so, was not his speak- 
ing a miracle ; and a miracle performed for a bad purpose, — 
that of drawing onr first parents into sin ? I suppose the serpent 
did literally speak to the woman. He held a literal conversation 
with her. We must suppose this, unless we regard the entire 
narrative as an allegory, — a supposition which the connection 
and many other Scriptures forbid. Nor is it certain that the 
speaking of Satan, through the organs of the serpent, was a 
proper miracle, involving (as all miracles do) a suspension of 
the powers and laws of nature, and a direct interposition of the 
power of God. The probability is, that Satan was able, by his 
own natural powers, to speak audibly and intelligibly through 
the organs of the serpent. We know that he often spoke through 
the human organs, in the time of Christ. He enabled the poor 
frantic demoniacs, in repeated instances, to utter truths, con- 
cerning which, of themselves, they had no knowledge. For 

46 



362 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

example, one of these demoniacs made an open profession of 
the Messiahship of Jesus, in advance even of his disciples and 
followers : "I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God" 
(Marki. 24). This must have been an utterance of the demon, 
through the organs of the possessed person. Nor have we any 
reason to think it a miraculous utterance. But if Satan could 
speak, of his own power, through the human organs, why might 
he not through the organs of the serpent? There is no more 
evidence of miracle in the latter case than in the former. 

3. Our third inquiry relates to the possibility of our first par- 
ents falling in the manner they did. Some have thought their 
apostasy wholly unaccountable. " They were perfectly holy. 
Their propensities, feelings, and habits were all holy. They 
had, in fact, a holy principle, a holy nature. How, then, could 
temptation reach such minds ? How could it overcome them ? " 
On the supposition that our first parents had a holy nature 
previous to their fall, — something back of and distinct from all 
holy affections, and which could express itself in nothing but 
holy action, — I do not see how they could fall. They certainly 
could not, unless their holy nature was changed, and no being 
but their Creator was able to change it. But there is no reason 
to suppose that they had such a nature as this. The evidence 
from reason and from facts is all against it. They had all the 
human faculties, fully developed, in a pure and perfect state. 
And up to this time, they had constantly exercised their facul- 
ties in the most proper manner. Their thoughts, their affections, 
their words, their actions, all had been holy. And in these, all 
their holiness consisted. It was an active holiness, comprised 
essentially in supreme love to God, and a disinterested love to 
the creatures of God. In other words, it was an active and per- 
fect obedience to the divine law. And all that their fall involved 
was, for this to be changed into active disobedience. There was 
no holy nature, back of and distinct from all that was active 
within them, requiring to be changed, but only a change in their 
active exercises and affections, from those which were holy to 
those which were sinful. 

It is certain that no good reason can be given for the fall of 
, our, first parents. Their act of transgression was altogether 



THE TEMPTATION AND FALL OF MAN. 363 

unreasonable and without excuse. Still, I have never supposed 
that there was anything inexplicably mysterious or unaccount- 
able in the matter. Their fall, I think, may be explained, as 
well as many other wicked things which have been transacted in 
the world. 

Being free moral agents, our first parents must have had the 
susceptibilities appropriate to such agents. They must have 
been susceptible to motive influence, both to good and evil, to 
the right and the wrong. Such susceptibilities imply nothing 
sinful in the person possessing them, but only that, as a moral 
agent, he is capable of doing wrong. Our Saviour must have 
had them, else he could not have been tempted any way. Our 
first parents must have had them, else they could have had no 
trial at all. Indeed, every moral agent has them, else he could 
not be a moral agent, and responsibility would cease. 

But our first parents were not only moral agents, and had the 
susceptibilities of such agents ; they were also on probation or 
trial. Hence it was necessary that they should have something 
to try them. For a state of trial in which there was nothing to 
try them would be just no trial at all. Being susceptible to 
motive influences, both to good and to evil, it was involved in 
their very probation that such motives should be placed before 
them. In order that they might be, the tempter was permitted 
to enter the garden. Embodied in the wily serpent, he ap- 
proaches the woman, whom he finds 'alone somewhere near the 
forbidden tree, and enters into conversation with her. Perhaps 
she had heard him speak before, so that the fact of his speaking 
did not surprise her. " Yea, hath God said that ye shall not 
eat of every tree of the garden ? Is it possible that he is deal- 
ing thus hardly with you, and thus arbitrarily interdicting your 
freedom ? " And the woman said : " We may eat of the fruit of 
the trees of the garden ; but of the fruit of this one tree, which 
stands here in the midst of the garden, God hath said that ye 
shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." But 
the serpent said unto the woman, " Ye shall not- surety die. No 
such evil is to be apprehended. I have often eaten of it, 
and I am not dead, or injured, but am the rather benefited. It 
would seem as though God was jealous of you. He is arbitra- 



364 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

rily restraining you, to your hurt. For he doth know that in 
the day that ye eat thereof your eyes shall be opened, as mine 
are, and ye shall become as very gods, knowing good aud evil." 

In this artful address, we see how the serpent appeals to the 
moral susceptibilities of the woman, and plies his motive influ- 
ence upon her. First of all, he undertakes to shake her con- 
fidence in God, and weaken her sensje of obligation to him ; that 
so the motives to disobedience may find little or no resistance. 
Then he flatly lies to the unsuspecting woman. He blinds and 
deceives her as to the dreaded consequences of trangression. 
Next, he makes his appeal to her senses. "See, how beautiful 
this fruit is, and how delicious to the taste?" He appeals also 
to her natural curiosity, aud to her desire of knowledge and 
of happiness, — all of them powerful principles of action ; and 
by all he urges her to make the experiment ; assuring her that 
it can do her no harm, but good ; that it will make her instantly 
more wise and happy. The confiding, inexperienced creature is, 
as Paul expresses it, "deceived" (1 Tim. ii. 14). She believes 
the tempter rather than God. He so presents and urges the 
motives to transgression, that they predominate over all other 
influences, and she yields. She puts forth her hand — she. takes 
— she eats. The deed is done ; the serpent's malice is satiated ; 
and he retires from the scene. 

Eve soon finds her husband, and tells him what she has done. 
She tells him how delicious the fruit is, and how desirable to 
make one Wise. She assures him, from her own experience, 
that there is no danger of death, and urges him, by all the re- 
gard which he ought to have for his Own good, and by all the 
love which he bears to her, to take and eat likewise. Nor is it 
so very strange that her persuasions prevailed with him. For, 
in addition to all the motives which had prevailed with her, 
there was the additional one of conjugal affection. Adam 
could not be separated from his beloved Eve. He preferred to 
be united with her even in transgression. If Eve must die, he 
chose to die with her. He took the forbidden fruit from her 
hand, and did as she required. 

That our first parents acted unreasonably and wickedly in all 
this, there can be no doubt. They committed a great and dread- 



THE TEMPTATION AND FALL OF MAN. 365 

ful sin. But that there was anything mysterious or inexplicable 
in it, I see no reason to believe. Their fall may be accounted 
for on philosophical principles, as easily as most of the wicked- 
ness which is perpetrated among men. 

Having followed our first parentsHhrough their original trial 
and their fall, we come now to contemplate some of the more 
immediate consequences of their sin. Their eyes were soon 
opened, but in a way which they did not expect. They were 
opened to their own sin, and shame", and guilt. They had come 
to a knowledge of good and evil, in a sense which they never 
felt before. They stood guilty and condemned, without refuge 
or hope, expecting the wrath and curse of their Creator. They 
were afraid to meet an offended God, and so they went and hid 
themselves among the trees of the garden. 

But vain is their attempt to hide themselves from God. He 
soon finds them, summons them forth, and calls them to a strict 
account. They can offer no sufficient excuse, and, instead of 
taking the blame to themselves, they endeavor to shufHe it off 
upon others. The man blames the woman, and the woman the 
serpent. 

The several curses are now pronounced ; and, first, upon the 
serpent. "Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above 
all cattle, and above every beast of the field. Upon thy belly 
shalt thou go, and dust thou shalt eat all the days of thy life." 
Thus far the curse seems to rest upon the literal serpent. If he 
had legs or wings before, they were now taken from him, and 
he was doomed henceforth to creep upon his belly, and lick the 
dust. 1 The remainder of the curse upon the serpent had respect 
more particularly to "that old serpent, the devil," whose agency 
was chiefly concerned in the temptation. "I will put enmity 
between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her 
seed. It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." 
We have here, in the curse upon the serpent, the first dawn of 
hope for the fallen human pair. The language carries with it 

1 It is remarkable, that though fossil remains of numerous species of serpents have 
come down to us from the pre-adamite earth, not one, so far as I recollect, has been 
found which had not fins, or wings, or legs, or, in some instances, all three. None went 
on their belly in the dust, like the generality of serpents since the fall. 



366 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

an assurance that they were to have a respite from death ; that 
they should live to have a seed ; and that a descendant of the 
woman should utterly vanquish the old serpent, and put an end 
to his usurped dominion over man. All this, I hardly need say, 
was gloriously fulfilled in »that great seed of the woman, the 
Lord Jesus Christ. Satan bruised his heel, when he brought 
him to the cross ; but by dying on the cross he utterly van- 
quished Satan, and defeated all his diabolical designs. "Through 
death, he destroyed him which had the power of death ; that is, 
the devil" (Heb. ii. 14). 

The curse upon the woman has rested heavily upon every 
daughter of Eve from that time to the present. In sorrow and 
pain has she brought forth her children. Her desire has been 
unto her husband, and he has ruled over her. The degradation 
of woman, and her sufferings from the other sex, more espe- 
cially in those parts of the world not blessed with the light of 
revealed truth, have been dreadful. She has not been punished 
for the sin of her first mother, but her sufferings in consequence 
of it have been long and dismal. 

The curse upon the man includes two things. First, a curse 
upon the ground, involving the necessity of hard and wasting 
labor on his part, in order to procure a subsistence from it. 
And, secondly, temporal dissolution or death. "And unto Adam 
God said : Cursed is the ground for thy sake ; in sorrow shalt 
thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns and thistles shall 
it bring forth unto thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. 
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou return 
unto the ground ; for out of it wast thou taken. For dust thou 
art, and unto dust shalt thou return. " The curse upon the 
ground involved some change in regard to its natural produc- 
tions. What this change was, precisely, and how it was pro- 
duced, we cannot tell. As much as this, however, may be 
said : That whereas the spontaneous productions of the earth 
before the fall were nutritious and useful, sc that a sustenance 
was easily procured, the case was very different afterwards. 
The ground then brought forth spontaneously the thorn and the 
thistle, the noxious weed and herb ; while those productions 
most necessary for the sustenance and use of man could be pro- 



THE TEMPTATION AXD FALL OF MAN. 367 

cured only by toil and labor. Certainly we find this to be the 
case now ; and all the generations of men, from Adam down- 
ward, have found the same. In the sweat of their face they 
have been constrained to eat their bread. Such, we have reason 
to know, was not the original order of things . It has been 
entailed upon us in consequence of sin. 

I have said that a part of the curse pronounced upon Adam 
was temporal death. In the verses above read, we have the first 
mention of temporal dissolution which occurs in the Bible. The 
death threatened to Adam, in case he transgressed, I endeavored 
to show in my last Lecture, was not temporal death. It was 
rather the proper penalty of the law, which is eternal death. 
The execution of this penalty, as I said, was for a time sus- 
pended, in order to make room for a dispensation of grace. The 
dispensation of grace had now been opened and entered upon. 
A seed of the woman had been promised, who should bruise the 
serpent's head. Fallen man may be saved, if he will repent and 
trust in the promised Saviour ; and consequently he must have 
a space for repentance. To afford him such a space, the execu- 
tion of the incurred penalty of the law is, for the time, suspended. 
Man has the offer of salvation through a Redeemer. If the offer 
is accepted in time, the incurred penalty is not only suspended, 
but remitted. The transgressor is forgiven, and received back 
into the favor and the love of God. But if the gracious offer is 
not accepted in time ; if it is neglected and rejected ; then the 
suspended penalty comes down with new aggravations upon the 
head of the transgressor. He has now not only broken the law 
of God, but trodden under foot his Son, and done despite to the 
Spirit of his grace. 

Upon such a probation as this were Adam and Eve placed 
immediately upon the revelation of a Saviour. Upon such a pro- 
bation are we all placed during our continuance in the present 
life. Of this probation of grace, temporal dissolution is the 
proper termination. When God has waited to be gracious long 
enough, and can consistently wait no longer, he breaks the brit- 
tle thread of life, and turns back the body to the dust from which 
it was taken. This, then, is the proper significance of temporal 
death, — to terminate the probation of fallen man, and settle the 



368 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

question whether he is to rise or sink, be happy or miserable, 
forever. Though not the proper penalty of the law, it is yet a 
fruit and consequence of sin ; but such a consequence as can be 
realized only under a dispensation of grace. 1 Hence, it was not 
till the dispensation of grace had opened, and a Saviour had been 
promised, that we first hear of temporal death in the Bible. 

And this accounts for what follows in the closing part of the 
third chapter of Genesis : " The Lord God drove out the man 
from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he 
was taken. And he placed at the east of the garden of Eden 
cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep 
the way of the tree of life," lest doomed man " should put forth 
his hand and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live 
forever." The tree of life was not a forbidden tree. Our first 
parents had free access to it during the period of their innocency. 
Its use seems to have been to remove from them all the causes 
of disease and death, and preserve them in perpetual maturity 
and health, till they were prepared to be transferred to some 
higher sphere. But fallen man is now doomed to temporal dis- 
solution. His body must die and return to the dust. And yet 
this catastrophe can never overtake him if he has free access, as 
formerly, to the tree of life. He will eat it, and never die. 
Hence, he must be driven out of the garden of Eden, and kept 
out. He must be -sternly kept back from the tree of life, else 
he will put forth his hand and eat of it, and live forever. 

Other and more serious consequences of the fall of man will 
be considered in the following Lectures. , 

1 The same is true of all the curses at this time pronounced upon the man and the 
woman, and through them upon the entire human race, -^-bitter consequences of sin, "but 
such as can he realized only while the execution of the threatened penalty is suspended, 
and man is on a dispensation of grace. 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL, DEPRAVITY., ETC*. 369 



LECTUKE XXXIII. 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL, DEPRAVITY, ETC. 

In my last Lecture we considered the temptation and fall of 
our first parents, and some of the more immediate consequences 
to them and their posterity. The ground brought forth to Adam 
the thorn and the thistle, and so it has done to all his descend- 
ants. He eat his bread in the sweat of his face, and so have 
they. He ended his probation in the dust, and so do they. 
The curse of Eve, too, has descended to all her daughters. 
They, like their first mother, bring forth their offspring in 
travail and pain. 

But the consequences of Adam's sin have come down to his 
posterity in a more fearful sense than all this. They are sinners 
in consequence of his sin. Like him, they are depraved, cor- 
rupted creatures, and are, "by nature, the children of wrath." 

The subject now before us is human depravity. In discussing 
it, let us consider, — 
I. Its universality . 

II. Its totality or entireness, so far as our moral affections are 
concerned. And, 

III. Its naturalness, as resulting from the sin and fall of our 
first parents. 

That the depravity of man is universal, extending to the entire 
race, is proved by the direct assertions of Scripture. In justifi- 
cation of this statement, I need only refer to the argument of 
Paul, contained in the first three chapters of his Epistle to the 
Romans. In the first chapter he sets forth the character of the 
heathen or Gentile nations. "Being filled with all unriffhteous- 
ness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full 
of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity ; whisperers, back- 
47 



370 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

biters, haters of God; despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of 
evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, cove- 
nant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful ; 
who, knowing the # judgment of God, that they which commit 
such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have 
pleasure in them that do them" (Rom. i. 29-32). 

Such, then, was the Gentile world as the Apostle Paul had 
seen it and known it. And now, turning to the Jews, he asks : 
"Are we better than they ? No, in no wise ; for we have before 
proved, both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. 
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. There is 
none that understandeth ; there is none that seeketh after God. 
They are all gone out of the way ; they are together become 
unprofitable ; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their 
throat is an open sepulchre ; with their tongues they have used 
deceit ; the poison of asps is under their lips ; whose mouth is 
full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed 
blood ; destruction and misery are in their ways ; and the way 
of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before 
their eyes" (Rom. iii. 9-18). In these verses, we have the 
testimony of an inspired apostle, as to the characters of both 
elews and Gentiles, — embracing the whole human race. Yea, 
more, we have the testimony of God himself as to the corrup- 
tion and wickedness of them all. " There is nofie righteous, no, 
not one. There is none that understandeth ; there is none that 
seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way ; they are 
together become unprofitable ; there is none that doeth good, no, 
not one." 

These direct assertions of Scripture, as to the universal de- 
pravity of man, are confirmed by various doctrinal implications. 
As much as this is implied in the doctrine of a universal atone- 
ment, or that Christ "gave himself a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 
ii. 6). Why should he give himself a ransom for all, if all were 
not sinners? "We thus judge," says Paul, "that if one died 
for all, then were all dead," — "dead in trespasses and sins" 
(2 Cor. v. 14). 

Consider also the universal necessity of regeneration. " Verily, 
verily I say unto you, except a man" — any man — "be born 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL, DEPRAVITY, ETC. 371 

again, — be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the king- 
dom of God." But why must all who are born into this world 
be born again of the Spirit, in order to see the kingdom of God, 
except that " that which is born of the flesh is flesh; " or, in other 
words, that all men are by nature sinners? 

Again : the Apostle Paul assures us that " by the ' deeds of 
the law shall no man living be justified " (Rom. iii. 20) . And 
why is it impossible for any man to be justified by the deeds of 
the law, except that all men have broken the law, and that, 
whether "Jews or Gentiles, all are under sin"? 

Still again : the apostle represents temporal death as a conse- 
quence of sin, and makes the latter as universal as the former. 
"As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, 
so death hath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" 
(Rom. v. 12). 

It will be seen from these statements, that the universal 
depravity of men rests not on a few insulated passages of Scrip- 
ture, but is implied, included, in most of the great facts and 
doctrines of the Bible. It can never be set aside, unless these 
doctrines are set aside, and with them the whole Bible is aban- 
doned. 

And what is so abundantly taught in the Scriptures is con- 
firmed by all other appropriate evidence. It is confirmed by 
universal observation. If all men are not sinners, then there 
are, and there have been, some spotlessly perfect human beings. 
But where are they ? In what nook or corner of the wide earth 
have they been found ? The great continents of our globe and 
the islands of the sea have now been generally explored. There 
is very little terra incognita remaining. Human beings have 
been sought out, wherever they exist. If there are those on 
the earth who are free from the taint and pollution of sin, it 
would seem as though they must long ago have been discovered. 
And yet no such discovery has been made. When the Lord 
looks down from heaven upon the children of 'men, to see if 
there be any that understand and seek after God ; he is con- 
strained to say now, as he did in former ages : "They are all 
gone aside ; they are together become filthy ; there is none that 
doeth good, no, not one" (Ps. xiv. 3). 



372 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

But without stopping to search for perfection, let us look at 
the characters of human beings, as these are exhibited before 
our eyes. And to begin with little children : How early do 
they exhibit the most affecting proofs of the corruption and 
wickedness of their hearts ! In the very morning of life we 
find them, not the little innocents which they are sometimes 
called, but proud, envious, covetous, vain, deceitful, fretful, 
and revengeful. They are selfish and contentious among them- 
selves, ungrateful and disobedient to their parents, restive under 
the most salutary restraints, and resolved to pursue their own 
evil ways. What a task is it to rear a single family, or to train 
up even one child, to holiness or virtue ! 

And, as we turn from childhood to those of riper years, the 
same marks of corruption and iniquity meet us. Wherever 
human beings exist they are found to be sensual, selfish, con- 
tentious, ambitious, grasping for dominion, and ever ready to 
trample on the immunities one of another. What, in general, 
are the laws of men, but so many efforts — too often vain — to 
restrain and punish human wickedness? And what are our 
courts, but tribunals for adjusting the ever-recurring brawls and 
controversies with which the earth is disgraced? And what 
mean the various contrivances to which men resort to protect 
themselves and their property from violence, to prevent the 
mischiefs of fraud and compel dishonesty to fulfil its engage- 
ments, except on the supposition that this is a depraved and 
guilty world ? In a world of holiness and purity such contriv- 
ances would not be needed, and would not be known. 

The history of the earth is little more than a history of war 
and carnage, intrigues and crimes. The strifes of kings, the 
rise and the ruin of nations, the exploits of conquerors in their 
thirst for blood, make up almost the whole of it. The pleasures 
of men, too, are, for the most part, guilty pleasures,— appro- 
priately denominated the pleasures of sin. And even the relig- 
ions which have prevailed chiefly in the earth may be adduced in 
proof of its depravity. They show the truth of Paul's declara- 
tion, that when men knew God, — or had the means of knowing 
him, — they did not like to retain him in their knowledge, but 
stupidly "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL, DEPKAVITY, ETC. 373 

images made like to corruptible men, and to birds and four- 
footed beasts and creeping things" (Rom. i. 23). 

Such, then, is the testimony of universal observation, as to 
the prevailing wickedness of men, — a testimony which might 
be indefinitely extended, and which, the farther it was pursued, 
would be the more conclusive. But we turn from it to consult, 
for a moment, the experience, the consciousness of individuals. 
Where shall the man be found whose conscience has never once 
reproached him for wrong-doing ; who has had no painful fore- 
bodings as to his future account and state ; who would dare go 
into his closet, and there protest before his Maker that he had 
never sinned? The truth is, men are conscious, universally, 
that they are sinners ; they know that they are"; and that they 
need cleansing, purification, pardon, in order that they may 
meet God in peace. And all this is evident in the various 
expedients to which they resort, — costly sacrifices, painful 
penances, expiations, and ablutions, — in the vain hope of 
making some amends for their sins, and appeasing the anger 
of their deities. 

But I cannot say more under the head of universal depravity, 
though it would be easy to write volumes. He who would deny 
that mankind are a depraved and sinful race must set at naught, 
not only the testimony of Scripture, but also that of his own 
senses and consciousness, <of universal observation and experi- 
ence. He must be prepared to deny the most obvious conclu- 
sions and the plainest facts. In short, his denial would be 
but another proof of that depravity which it was intended to 
refute. 

But how sinful are men in their natural state? To what 
extent are they corrupted and defiled? These questions will 
lead us still farther into the painful subject before us. They 
will lead us to treat — as proposed under our second head — of 
the totality, the entireness of human depravity, so. far as our 
moral affections are concerned. 

This subject of total depravity, as it is sometimes called, 
requires to be explained as well as proved. "We wish to know 
what is implied in it, and what not, that so false impressions 



374 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

may be removed, and we may be able to look at it in a proper 
light. 

Total depravity, then, does not imply that every man in his 
natural state is as bad as he can be. This is often alleged by 
those who reject the doctrine ; but the objection is not true,- — 
certainly not in the sense in which it would be commonly under- 
stood. Most sinners have the natural ability to be more 
flagrantly wicked than they are, to indulge worse thoughts and 
feelings, to say and do worse things ; and the contrary is not 
implied in the fact of their entire depravity. 

Nor does this doctrine imply, as is sometimes said, that men 
are totally disabled by the fall, and rendered incapable of doing 
their duty. So far from this, the doctrine really implies the 
contrary. Men must be capable of doing right, or they would 
not be capable of doing wrong. They must be free moral 
agents, capable of loving and hating, choosing and refusing, 
doing their duty and neglecting it, or they would not be totally 
depraved, or in a moral sense depraved at all. 

Nor does total depravity imply that the subjects of it are 
uniformly vicious. Here is another mistake into which the 
opposers of the doctrine very often fall. They insist that a 
totally depraved character must be a flagrantly vicious one ; and 
because unregenerate men are not all of them profane swearers, 
Sabbath-breakers, adulterers, thieves, and liars, and do not 
perpetrate these abominations all the time, they insist that they 
are not totally depraved. But let such persons remember that 
human depravity has its seat in the heart, and not in the outward 
life ; that the vices of men are appropriate fruits of it, but not 
its only fruits ; and that, although selfishness exhibits itself in 
various ways, some fairer and some fouler, it is still selfishness 
at bottom, and as such is an abomination in the sight of God. 
A totally selfish person is a totally sinful one, in whatever dress 
the indwelling iniquity may show itself, — whatever forms of 
external beauty or deformity it may chance to put on. 

Again : total depravity does not imply that the subjects of it 
have *no amiable natural affections, such as parental, conjugal, 
and filial love ; emotions of sympathy and pity, etc. Here is 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL, DEPRAVITY, ETC. 375 

another ground of objection to the doctrine before us. Its 
opposers tell us how tenderly impenitent parents love their 
children, and children their parents ; how pitiful they are to 
objects in distress, and how ready to make sacrifices for their 
relief; and then demand, with an air triumph, whether there is 
not something good in all this, and whether such persons can 
be entirely sinful. In reply, we admit the facts on which the 
objection is based ; viz., that impenitent persons are not destitute 
of kindly natural affections, but often possess them in a high 
degree. But we insist, at the same time, that this fact is not 
at all inconsistent with the idea of their entire sinfulness. For 
what are these kindly natural affections? They belong to the 
sensibilities, and not to the vrill. They are powerful incentives 
to action, but not moral action. They require to be wisely 
regulated and controlled, but in themselves are neither sinful 
nor holy. They are possessed by the worst of men, as well as 
the best. They are possessed in great vigor even by the brutes. 
To be destitute of them would, indeed, imply great depravity;, 
since it could only be by such depravity that they were blunted 
and destroyed. But the possession of them even in high 
degrees, is not at all inconsistent with an entire alienation of 
the heart from God. 

Still again : total depravity does not imply that the subjects of 
it have no amiable social affections, — those which go to render 
them good members of society. They may possess love of 
country, natural friendship, honor, honesty, kind, obliging 
dispositions, and many things of this sort, an^ yet have no true, 
disinterested love to God or .man, and nothing which partakes 
of the nature of holiness. These social affections are many of 
them mere feelings, instincts, which fall into the same class with 
the natural affections. Others of them are but outward modi- 
fications of selfishness. Were all that is selfish to be sifted, 
separated from the patriotism, the humanity, the friendships, 
the seeming virtues of social life, God only knows how little 
would remain. The residuum, it may be feared, would be very 
small. 

Farther : total depravity does not imply that the subjects of it 
may not act to some extent, and in the looser sense of the term, 



376 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

conscientiously, Natural men have consciences, like other men. 
They may have tender consciences. They may act very consid- 
erably under the influence of their consciences, and yet not be 
truly holy. Their consciences may be so strangely perverted as 
to lead them — under the impression that they are doing right 
— to the perpetration of great wickedness. This was the case 
with Paul, in persecuting the church. Or other and baser feel- 
ings — such as pride, passion, malice, and self-will — may mingle 
with the promptings of a misguided conscience, and essentially 
corrupt it. Or persons may consult and obey their consciences 
but a little way, leaving out of the account those internal 
principles from which holiness and sin alone proceed. Thus, 
a child may act conscientiously in reading his Bible and saying 
his prayers, without stopping to consider with what feelings of 
heart these outward actions are performed. And older persons 
may act conscientiously in going to meeting, supporting the 
gospel, paying their debts, giving to the poor, and doing various 
other things, after the same manner. 

I remark again, that total depravity does not imply that the 
subjects of it may not think themselves, and be thought by 
others, to be very religious. Simon, the sorcerer, for a time 
appeared very religious. Without doubt, he was regarded as a 
remarkable instance of converting grace. But he had neither 
part nor lot in the matter, because his heart was not right in the 
sight of God. There is in the world a vast amount of false, 
spurious, selfish, counterfeit religion, passed off under the sem- 
blance of true religion, the possession of which, so far from 
being inconsistent with total depravity, is but one of the forms 
in which this depravity is manifested. 

We have thus seen, under several particulars, what total 
depravity does not imply ; and, in discussing these particulars, 
have removed nearly all the objections which are commonly 
urged against it. It cannot be said of the doctrine we advocate, 
that it implies that unrenewed men are as bad as they can be ; 
or that they have no ability or capacity to do their duty ; or 
that they are of necessity flagrantly vicious; or that they have 
no amiable natural or social affections ; or that they may not 
act, in some sense, conscientiously ; or seem to themselves and 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL, DEPRAVITY, ETC. 377 

to others to be religious. The doctrine we hold implies none of 
these, and of course they cannot be urged as objections .against 
it. 

The question then arises, What is this doctrine of total deprav- 
ity? How much does it imply? What is the belief of Orthodox 
Christians in regard to it? To this I answer : the advocates of 
total depravity believe, and this is all they believe, that the 
heart of man, in his natural state, is without holiness, and entirely 
under the dominion of sin. He is totally depraved, so far as 
his moral affections are concerned. In other words, his moral 
exercises and affections are sinful. He is wholly alienated from 
God. He begins to sin as soon as he begins to live and act, 
and he continues to sin without intermission or cessation, until 
his heart is renewed by the power and grace of the Holy Spirit. 
This is total depravity ;— a doctrine which is plainly taught in 
the Bible, and which is verified in the experience and observa- 
tion of all good men. 

1. Total depravity is taught in the Bible. It is taught in 
those passages in which the wicked are represented as blind and 
deaf and dead. "Hear, ye deaf, and look, ye blind, that ye 
may see" (Is. xlii. 18). "You hath he quickened, who were 
dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. ii..l). As the blind are 
destitute of sight, and the deaf of hearing, and the dead of life, 
so the wicked are here represented as destitute of holiness, or 
spiritual life. Sinners are also represented, in the Bible, as 
unjust, unrighteous, ungodly, unholy, w?ibelieving, etc., terms 
necessarily implying that those, to whom they are applied are 
without holiness, and of course under the dominion of sin. It 
is further said in the Scripture^ that "the imagination and 
thought of man's heart is only evil and that continually;" that 
" the heart of the sons of men is full of evil," and "fully set in 
them to do evil;" that it is "deceitful above all things, and des- 
perately wicked ;" that "the carnal mind is enmity against God," 
and that in it " dwelleth no good thing ;" — expressions imply- 
ing, if the language means anything, that the natural heart of 
man is entirely sinful. 

2. This doctrine, like that of universal depravity, is taught, 
not only in the direct language of Scripture, but by necessary 

43 



378 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

doctrinal implications. Let us look again at the doctrine of 
regeneration. Eegeneration is the commencement of a new and 
spiritual life in the soul. It is the commencement of holy exer- 
cises and affections in the heart. The subject of this change 
becomes at once a new creature. Old things pass away with 
him, and all things become spiritually new. But if this is a just 
view of regeneration, then manifestly, previous to it, there is no 
spiritual life in the soul. There are no holy exercises in the 
heart. All its emotions and affections must be sinful. If men had 
some holiness in their natural state, they might need reformation, 
but not regeneration. They might need to improve upon their 
native good qualities, but not to be born again. 

Look also at the marked distinction, everywhere recognized 
in the Scriptures between the righteous and the wicked. It is 
impossible to make this distinction, and show in what it consists, 
if we deny the doctrine of total depravity. If the sinner has 
some holiness previous to regeneration ; if his character is a 
mixed one, partly holy and partly sinful; then how does he' 
differ from the believer? The true Christian, in this life, is not 
perfectly holy. He does not do as well as he ought, or as well 
as he can. The most that can be said of him is that he has 
some right affections,— that he has at least drawn the breath of 
spiritual life. And now, if the sinner, too, has some right 
affections, some spiritual life, where is the mighty difference 
between the two classes ? Where is there any difference ? Mani- 
festly, on this ground, the distinction so constantly recognized 
in Scripture between the righteous and the wicked, the saint 
and the sinner, is obliterated. It no longer exists. 

3. The doctrine of the entire sinfulness of the natural heart is 
verified in the experience of all good men. Every true Christian 
acknowledges this truth. He acknowledges it as the result of 
his own experience. He has seen and felt it to be true in his 
own heart ; and every other man, if he properly understood the 
subject, would see and feel the same. The law of God requires 
that we love him with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, 
and that we love our neighbor as ourselves. To obey this law 
is to be holy. To fail of obeying it, or (which is the same) to 
transgress it, is to be sinful. And now who does not know that 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL, DEPRAVITY, ETC. 379 

he has failed of yielding a strict obedience to this law con- 
tinually? What unrenewed person, who reflects at all, will 
not see and confess that he has never fulfilled it in a single 
instance ? 

Those who do not love God with all the heart, love them- 
selves and the world with all their heart. Those who do not 
love their neighbor as themselves, love themselves more than 
their neighbor. In other words, they are selfish. And what 
sinner, who looks closely into his own heart, can fail to see that 
this is the actual state of it? He is selfish. He loves himself; 
he labors for himself; he seeks his own supposed interest in 
preference to any other object. Even his best performances he 
will perceive are the result of selfishness, and, of course, are 
not acceptable in the sight of God. 

4. The decisions of Scripture and the results of experience, 
on this subject, are confirmed by observation. How do we see 
men living and acting in the world around us ? Passing over 
the multiform vices and corruptions of the world, —its idola- 
tries, its blasphemies, its wars, its murders, its adulteries, its 
frauds, its falsehoods, its unnatural and guilty pleasures, — let 
us look only at the fairer aspects of society. And what are 
these? Some, to be sure, who give no evidence of piety, are 
not palpably deficient in the performance of relative and social 
duties. They are good parents, good children, good neighbors, 
citizens, and friends. But do they love God with all the heart, 
and their fellow-creatures as themselves ? Do they appear to 
do this ? Do they profess to do it ? On the contrary, are they 
not universally and manifestly selfish ? 

How early and how clearly do we discover selfishness in chil- 
dren ! Little children are incapable of much disguise. They 
commonly speak and act out their real feelings. And how 
obviously they act out feelings of selfishness ! For what do 
they cry, but that self may be gratified? And for what are 
they pleased, but that self is gratified? And for what do they 
contend one with another, but to get or to keep some good to 
themselves? And for what are they angry and revengeful, 
but to resent some injury supposed to be inflicted on the same 
darling object? 



380 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

And those feelings of selfishness which child ren act out with- 
out disguise, men labor to disguise in vain. Men generally are 
ashamed of them, and try to conceal them; but the effort is 
wholly unsuccessful. The truth oozes out through so many 
crevices, as to leave no doubt as to the quality of what is within. 
Whether in childhood or manhood, whether among savage or 
civilized nations, selfishness is obviously the grand moving 
spring of human conduct. Men plan and execute, they bustle 
and labor, for themselves. For this the student studies, and 
the husbandman tills the earth, and the mechanic visits his shop, 
and the merchant his warehouse, and the seaman traverses the 
mighty deep, and all the powers of nature are pressed into the 
service of man. Self is the rallying point with each individual. 
Self is the ruling motive with all, — unless it be with a very 
few ; and these are looked upon by the mass of men as perfect 
anomalies and mysteries, for whose actions it is impossible to 
give any rational account. It is thought the strangest thing on 
earth that persons should be willing to labor, as Paul did, and 
as the Saviour did, without a governing regard to their own 
private interests. 

Thus clearly does observation, as well as experience, testify 
to the entire selfishness of natural, unrenewed men. But, cer- 
tainly, men are as sinful as they are selfish ; for all selfishness 
is sin. Yea, more, it is the very quintessence of sin, out of 
which every form of sin proceeds, and of which it partakes. 
"Who, then, can deny that mankind, in a state of nature, are 
entirely sinful? Who can be ignorant or insensible of this 
humiliating fact, in his own experience? 

The importance of the doctrine considered in this Lecture — 
the universal and entire depravity of unrenewed men — can 
^hardly be overestimated. It deserves, perhaps, more than any 
other, to be regarded as & fundamental doctrine. Let a person 
believe and. feel that he is a totally depraved and ruined sinner, 
and he will see that he needs a divine Saviour and Sanctifier, an 
infinite atonement, and regeneration by the special operations 
of the Holy Spirit. But let him take the opposite course, reject 
this great doctrine, and settle down upon the conclusion that he 
is naturally good, — as good almost as he needs to be or wishes 



CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL, DEPRAVITY, ETC. 381 

to be — and what will the result be upon his general belief and 
character? He now feels in no particular need of a divine 
Saviour, and will not-long believe that such a Saviour has been 
provided. He feels no need of an atonement, and will soon 
deny that an atonement has been made. He sees no necessity 
of a change of heart, and doubts whether such a change is ever 
experienced. He feels in no need of the sanctifying operations 
of the Holy Ghost, and does not know that there is any Holy 
Ghost. He feels in no danger of eternal punishment, and 
questions whether such a punishment will ever be inflicted. He 
begins with doubting his own depravity, and ends in becoming 
a thorough-going liberalist, sceptic, and infidel. 

This doctrine of total depravity is to be assumed as a first 
principle, not only in the preaching of ministers, and in a system 
of theology, but in all systems of political economy or of popular 
education. And here is a point in regard to which most of the 
works which have been written on these subjects have seemed 
to me to be erroneous and defective. They proceed upon the 
principle that man is naturally a virtuous being ; warped in some 
degree from the path of rectitude, but always ready to return 
to it ; perverted by bad instructions and examples, but meaning 
well on the whole, and quite willing to be set right, and kept 
there. He needs to be reformed, but not renewed; to be 
improved and polished, but not to be born again. I hardly 
need say that such systems should be discarded by Christians, 
as based upon false views of human nature, and tending to 
blind, deceive, and injure all who embrace them. 



332 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUKE XXXIV. 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL. NATURAL DEPRAVITY. 

In treating the subject of depravity, it was proposed to con- 
sider, — 

I. Its universality, 

II. Its totality or entireness, so far as our moral affections are 
concerned. And, 

III. Its naturalness, as resulting from the sin and fall of our 
first parents. 

The two first of these particulars have been already discussed. 
To the third, your attention will now be directed. That our 
depravity is natural to us, growing somehow out of our very 
nature, may be inferred from what has been already said. We 
have proved that this depravity is universal, extending to all the 
race ; and that it uniformly shows itself in very early life. Now 
in what way are these facts to be accounted for, bat by sup- 
posing that it has its foundation in the nature of fallen man? 
Certainly, any other attribute or quality belonging to the race 
universally, and showing itself in the very morning of our days, 
would be pronounced a natural quality. No other conclusion 
would be thought of in regard to it. 

That our depravity is natural to us is also taught in the Scrip- 
tures. Our Saviour says, " That which is born of the flesh is 
flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit" (Johniii. 6). 
The word flesh, in the former part of this verse, is used in two 
different senses ; as the word spirit is in the latter part. To be 
born of the flesh is simply to be born in the natural way. To 
he flesh, in the sense of our Saviour, is to be fleshly, carnal, 
sinful in our affections. The sense of the passage is therefore, 
this : All that are born into the world — in other words, all 



NATURAL DEPRAVITY. 383 

men — are carnal in their affections, — carnal on account of their 
being born, — or (which is the same) carnal by nature, — and 
need to be born again of the Holy Spirit, in order to see the 
kingdom of Gocl. 

And this is parallel with a passage in the writings of Paul. 
"And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others" 
(Eph. iii. 2). To be a child of wrath is to be a sinner; and 
such, the apostle assures us, we are all by nature. Whatever 
else this passage may teach, it surely teaches as much as this, 
that sin is natural to us. There is a foundation for it, some- 
how, in our nature. 

The same is taught more specifically by the apostle, in other 
passages, in which he represents our sins as connected in some 
way with that of Adam, from whom we are naturally descended. 
"As by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death 
by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have 
sinned." "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift; for 
if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the 
grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, 
Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." "For if by one man's 
offence death reigned by one ; much more they which receive 
abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign 
in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of 
one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation ; even so by 
the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto 
justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many 
were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be 
made righteous" (Rom. v. 12-19). * 

Without going into a full interpretation of these several pas- 
sages, it is enough for our present purpose to say that the con- 
nection of our sin with that of Adam is here repeatedly and 
expressly indicated. n By one man's disobedience many icere 
made sinners.' 1 My principal object, at present, is to inquire 
into the nature of this connection, and to examine briefly some 
of the theories which have been proposed respecting it. 

1. It has been said that all mankind existed in Adam, or were 
constituted one with him, so that they "sinned in him, and fell 
with him in his first transgression." This was the opinion of 



384 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

President Edwards, and of many of the older Calvinistic 
divines. 1 But to this view of the case there are insuperable 
objections. In the first place, it would be hard to prove, in 
opposition to reason and common sense, that all men did actu- 
ally exist in Adam. Or, if they did have a kind of seminal 
existence in him, did they exist as moral agents, — free, think- 
ing, active beings, and capable of committing sin? Who 
believes as much as this? 

But suppose we did exist in Adam, and participated in his 
first sin ; why not, for the same reason, in all his sins? Adam 
lived nine hundred and thirty years, and without doubt com- 
mitted a great many sins ; and if we so existed in him as to be 
guilty of his first sin, why not, for the same reason, guilty of 
them all? And why not, for the same reason, guilty of all the 
sins of all our progenitors from Adam downward ; since we 
have as much existed in the loins of all as we ever did in those 
of Adam? No man, since Adam, ever felt guilty, or condemned 
in conscience, for eating the forbidden fruit ; and if any of his 
descendants are punished for eating it, I think they will have 
good reason to complain. For the truth is, they did not eat it. 
They did not so exist in Adam as to have any active concern in 
that transaction. 

2. It has been supposed, that although the posterity of Adam 
were not personally concerned in his first sin, still, this sin is so 
imputed, transferred, put over to them, as actually to become 
theirs. But to this it is enough to reply that sin is not transfer- 
able property. It is strictly a personal thing. My sin can never 
become another man's, nor another man's mine. The imputa- 
tion of sin, spoken of in the Bible, does not imply a transfer of 



1 See Treatise on Original Sin, Part iv. chap. 3. Musculus says : " That all men 
existing in Adam's loins, did sin, in his actual sin." Junius says : " The sin of Adam 
was not a personal one, but was the sin of the whole human race ; since the race was 
included in his loins, and sinned in him." Beza says : " There are three things which 
make man guilty before God. 1. The fact that we all sinned in the first man. 2. The 
corruption which is in punishment of that sin; and 3. Our own actual transgressions." 
Strackius says : " All the descendants of Adam assuredly sinned in his loins, and revolted 
from God to the devil." Molinaeus says : " We sinned in Adam, and in him we willed 
this depravation." Hunnius teaches, that " as the first sin was committed voluntarily 
by Adam, so also it was committed voluntarily by us all; and so all descending from him 
are born voluntary transgressors." 



NATURAL DEPRAVITY. 385 

sin. We may and do. suffer in many ways in consequence of 
Adam's sin, and in this sense his sin may be said to be imputed 
to us ; but the sin itself never can become ours. 

3. Some have thought that the sins of men are to be regarded 
as a punishment for Adam's sin. But neither is this theory to 
be admitted. Adam was not threatened with the sin and ruin 
of his posterity, in case he eat the forbidden fruit, but rather 
with that eternal death which is the proper penalty of the law. 
And besides, where is the justice or propriety of thus punishing 
Adam in his posterity? Where is the justice of it, so far as 
his posterity is concerned? This would be, not to visit the 
iniquities of the fathers upon the children consequentially, but to 
punish the child for its father's sin, — a thing which God has 
declared he can never do. (See Ezek. xviii. 20.) And where 
is the justice of such punishment, so far as Adam is himself 
concerned ? If Adam repented of his sins and was forgiven, 
and has gone to heaven, why should he continue to be punished 
in his posterity? Or if he died in his sins, and has gone to 
perdition, he is suffering the full reward of them in his own 
person, and why should he be punished in his posterity? In 
every view, therefore, this theory of punishment appears to be 
unfounded. 

4. It has been held by some that the forbidden fruit possessed 
a deleterous, poisonous quality, which infected the bodies of our 
first parents, and through them the bodies of all their descend- 
ants ; and that when a soul becomes connected with one of these 
infected bodies, it receives from it a taint, a degree of corrup- 
tion, a bias or propensity to evil. 

As to the poisonous quality of the forbidden fruit, we read 
nothing of it in the Scriptures, and have no means of determin- 
ing whether it was so or not. But this we know, that the 
infection which has come down to us from Adam was of a moral, 
and not a physical character. It seems primarily to affect the 
souls of men, and not their bodies. The bodies of men are 
debased, perverted, and destroyed through the influence of a 
sinful soul, and not the soul (as the Gnostics dreamed) through 
the influence of the body. 

5. We come next to the Pelagian theory, that the sins of men 

49 



386 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

may all be owing to the mere force of education and example. 
The example of Adam corrupted his immediate descendants, and 
their example corrupted the next generation , and so on down to 
the present time. But while we are willing to allow much to the 
force of parental example and influence, we cannot admit that 
this method of accounting for the sins of men is satisfactory. 
For, in the first place, children begin to sin before they are 
capable of being much influenced by example any way. They 
are selfish, peevish, petulant, revengeful, before they can have 
imbibed these hateful passions from the influence of those around 
them. And besides ; those children who are most favored in 
point of example are just as sure to commence their moral 
existence sinners, and to need the regenerating influences of the 
Spirit as any others ; thus showing that the ground of corruption 
lies deeper than the mere force of education and example. 

6. I notice but another method of accounting for the facts 
under consideration, and that is by referring them to diabolical 
influence. The devil seduced our first parents ; and why not 
suppose him to have seduced all their descendants, and to have 
established and perpetuated the reign of sin over them ? To this 
I reply, that while I have no doubt that much of the sin exist- 
ing in the world is to be ascribed to diabolical influence, it does 
not seem either reasonable or scriptural to account for the natu- 
ral and universal sinfulness of mankind in this way. The devil 
rather takes advantage of the natural sinfulness of men, to lead 
them into flagrant, outbreaking acts of wickedness, than is him- 
self the author of our natural sinfulness. Besides, the natural 
sinfulness of men, we have seen, is in Scripture ascribed to their 
connection with Adam, and not to the temptations of the devil. 

But if these various suppositions are all to be rejected, what 
are we to believe on the subject before us ? How are we to 
connect the natural and universal sinfulness of men with the 
first offence of Adam ? 

I know of no better way of connecting these two solemn facts 
— none more satisfactory in itself or more in accordance with 
Scripture and reason— than by referring them to the operation 
of a natural law, — one of wide extent, of invariable sequence, 
and of the utmost importance, — that, according to which every- 



NATUEAL DEPRAVITY. 387 

thing in nature produces its like. This law holds good through 
the entire vegetable and animal kingdoms. It was impressed 
upon all living, organized existence, at the creation. "Let the 
earth bring forth the living creature after Ms kind, cattle, and 
creeping things, and beast of the earth after his kind" (Gen. i. 
24). In accordance with this law, man propagates his own spe- 
cies, and not another. He brings forth offspring after his kind. 
And not only so, he brings them forth in the same moral state or 
condition in which he is himself. Had the first man continued 
holy to the end of his trial, his nature would have been uncor- 
rupt, and his offspring, inheriting such a nature, would have 
commenced their moral existence holy. But when Adam fell 
into sin his very nature became corrupted. His understanding, 
in regard to spiritual things, was darkened, and his sensibilities 
were deranged and perverted, so that he fell at once under the 
influence of a standing proclivity or tendency to sin. To this 
tendency he yielded, and continued freely, spontaneously 
sinning on, until he was renewed (if he ever was) by sovereign 
grace. 

In this state of perversion, corruption, and spiritual death, 
our first parents brought forth their offspring, and, in accord- 
ance with the law above referred to, they brought forth their 
like. As their natures were corrupted and depraved, so have 
been the natures of their children, and their children's children 
to the thousandth generation. As they had a natural proneness 
or tendency to sin, so have their children. And as, under the 
influence of this tendency, they went on freely, actively sinning, 
so do their children. " They are estranged from the womb ; 
they go astray as soon as they be born" (Ps. lviii. 3). "That 
which is born of the flesh is flesh" (John iii. 6). 

The statement here given does not imply that the souls of 
men are propagated like their bodies, but that, in creating souls, 
and connecting them with bodies, God acts according to a fixed 
law, — the great law of descent, in accordance with which every- 
thing in nature produces its like. 

Nor does it imply that the fall of Adam wrought in us any 
change of faculties, as to number or kind. As remarked in a 
previous Lecture, man has the same faculties now (though not 



388 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

perhaps in the same perfect state) that Adam had before he 
sinned. 

Nor does the explanation above given imply that the poster- 
ity of Adam have inherited their first father's sin; or that they 
have any sin attaching to them which is not strictly their own. 
They have inherited a corrupt nature and corrupt propensities, 
— a natural proneness or tendency to sin, but not sin itself. 

Nor does it imply that men ever become sinners but by their 
own active, personal sinning. Sin is, in its very nature, an 
active thing, and cannot be predicated of a passive substance or 
state. 

The theory here propounded is not Very different from that 
which ascribes the connection between our sin and that of Adam 
to the sovereign purpose or constitution of God ; since the law 
of descent, of which I have spoken, is of divine appointment 
and ordination. Like all the other laws of nature, it is but a 
regular, established mode of divine operation. 

That depraved, corrupted state of the soul, of wmich I have 
spoken, and which, by the law of descent, has come to us from 
Adam, does not at all lessen our obligations, or diminish our 
natural ability to be holy. We have still all the faculties of 
moral agency (and these constitute natural ability) in the exer- 
cise of w T hich we may be holy or sinful, as we please. Our nat- 
ural tendency to evil is of the nature of a standing motive or 
inducement, which ought to be resisted and overcome. And so 
it would be if all the powers of the soul were exerted in a 
proper manner. But instead of this, the human family, one 
after another, yield to it, fall before it, and continue under the 
power of sin, until delivered by the recovering grace of God. 

But it will be asked, Is not that natural tendency, disposition, 
inclination to sin, of which w r e have spoken, in itself sinful? 
How can it be otherwise ? To this I answer, A tendency to a 
thing cannot, from the very terms employed, be the same as the 
thing itself. A tendency to sin cannot be sin ; for this would 
imply that the tendency, and that to which it tends, are identi- 
cal. And as to the words disposition and inclination, I have 
remarked, in a previous Lecture, that they are used in different 
senses. A disposition to any outward act is made up of internal 



NATURAL DEPRAVITY. 389 

voluntary exercises, and is holy or sinful, according as these are 
good or bad. And the character of the outward act is always 
to be referred to the disposition which originated it. But there 
is another sense, in which the words disposition and inclination 
are used, which requires to be carefully distinguished. A 
disposition for the putting forth of certain internal voluntary 
exercises cannot consist of such exercises, but rather of a prepa- 
ration for them, or tendency to them. This is the ulterior and 
more strictly etymological view of the word in question. It is 
in this sense that the word has been used in the foregoing dis- 
cussion. It denotes a state of the mind, and not an act of it, 
and is in itself neither sinful nor holy. 

It will be said, perhaps, that to bring men into existence with 
a prevailing bias or tendency to sin, is as bad, every way, as to 
make them sinners, or cause them to inherit a sin anterior to 
any exercise or act or their own. But so it does not seem to 
me. * The one theory makes God the responsible author of sin, 
— at least of that sin which attaches to our passive natures, and 
which we bring into the world with us. The other theory 
makes him the author of only a tendency to sin ; and this in 
accordance with a general and most benevolent law, the course 
of which could not be interrupted without a constant miracle. 

If God made us sinners, without any act or concurrence of 
our own, then, clearly, he is the author of our sin. Or if he so 
made us, that we are under a natural necessity of sinning from 
the first, — so made us that we must sin, whether we will or no ; 
then we are more to be pitied that blamed. But if he made us 
with only a bias, a tendency to sin, with entire natural ability to 
overcome this tendency, and with entire moral liberty whether 
to yield to it or not ; then I see not that he is to blame be- 
cause his creatures yield to it, and voluntarily fall before it. 
Their sin, in this case, is their own, and they are alone respon- 
sible. 

It has been thought to be inconsistent with the goodness of 
God that he should give existence to creatures who, he certainly 
knew, would fall into sin. But this objection lies equally 
against every system of doctrine which asserts the foreknowl- 
edge of God. That there is a great deal of sin in the world, 



390 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

no person can doubt. And God saw in eternity, if he created 
the world, and placed men upon it, that it would be so. Why, 
then, did he create? Why did he bring men into being, when 
he saw and knew that they would sin against him ? When the 
objector has satisfactorily answered these questions, he will have 
little difficulty with any others growing out of the views which 
have been here exhibited. 

Of the doctrine which has been advanced in respect to natu- 
ral depravity, or the connection of our sin with that of Adam, 
the following is the sum. Descending, as we have, from a 
fallen, corrupted progenitor, and inheriting, as we do, a nature 
like his own, we all commence our moral existence under the 
influence of a natural bias, a tendency to sin ; a state of mind 
not sinful in itself, but operating as a standing propensity to 
sin ; a propensity which we ought to overcome, but of our- 
selves never do ; a state of mind in which it is certain that we 
shall freely sin, and only sin, until we are renewed by sovereign 
grace. 



THE CHAEACTEE OF INFANTS. 391 



LECTUEE XXXV. 

THE CHARACTER OF INFANTS. 

Intimately connected with the subject of depravity, which 
has been before us in the two previous Lectures, is that of 
infant character. And this is a very important subject. The 
entire human race, with the exception of Adam and Eve, either 
have commenced, or will commence, their existence in infancy. 
Hence, we are all interested to know so much as we may respect- 
ing the state and character of the infant. Besides, no incon- 
siderable portion of our race die in infancy. In what state and 
character, then, do they die? And what is to become of them 
after they leave the world ? 

The theories of infant character now before the public nat- 
urally divide themselves into two classes : the one regarding the 
infant as innocent, the other holding him to be a sinner. I know 
not that any Christians have said that infants, at the first, were 
positively holy. Pelagius himself would not have said so much 
as this. But there are those who hold them to be negatively 
innocent; they have no sin ; and this because they are not moral 
agents, and have no moral character at all. 

Of those who take this ground there are two distinct classes : 
the Pelagian and the Evangelical. The Pelagian insists that 
the infant has inherited no corruption of any kind from Adam ; 
that he is born as he would have been if Adam had not sinned. 
He has no moral character at the first ; but when moral agency 
commences, and he begins to have a character, it is as likely 
to be good as bad. If he is rightly instructed, and a proper 
example is set before him, it is even more likely to be holy than 
sinful. And as this individual advances in life, his character 
will be a mixed one, in which holiness or sin will be likely to 



392 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

predominate, according as the influences with which he is sur- 
rounded are good or bad. 

We hardly need stop to refute this theory of infant character, 
as no evangelical Christian can possibly adopt it. It is incon- 
sistent with all those Scriptures which speak of the entire sin- 
fulness of the natural man. It is inconsistent with the doctrine 
of regeneration. It leaves no room or ground for any radical 
distinction between the righteous and the wicked. It is contra- 
dicted in the experience of all spiritually enlightened Christians, 
and no such Christian can intelligently adopt it. 

Bat there is another class who believe that the infant is not a 
moral agent, and consequently has no sin, who still believe that 
he has inherited a degree of depravation or mental derangement 
from a fallen father. He is not in the state he would have 
been, if ,Adam had not sinned. He is in such a state, that as 
soon as moral agency commences, and he begins to do anything 
of a moral nature, he begins to sin ; and from this time forward 
all his moral acts are sinful, until he is renewed by sovereign 
grace. 

It will be seen that, although this theory agrees with the last 
in regarding the infant as yet without sin, it differs from it in 
other important respects, and must not be confounded with it. 
The former doctrine is unevangelical ; this is not necessarily so. 
It is held by some excellent ministers and Christians ; still, it is 
open to very serious objections. 

In the first place, this sinless infant, who is not yet a moral 
agent, is either a human being — a member of the great family 
of man — or he is not. If he is not yet a human being, then 
he is a mere animal ; and why not regard and treat him as an 
animal? Why baptize him, or pray for him, or have a funeral 
for him in case of death, more than for any other little animal?" 
And why indulge any fond hopes, should he be taken away, in 
respect to his immortality ? 

But it will be conceded by those with whom we now reason, 
that the infant is of the same race with us, — is a human being. 
And if so, then he possesses all that pertains to a human being. 
He has a human soul, as well as body ; a soul in possession of 
all the human faculties; and these faculties, it should seem, 



THE CHARACTER OF INFANTS. 393 

must be in an active state. How can they be otherwise ? What 
are we to think of a healthful human soul, in possession of all 
the faculties of a soul, existing for mouths, and as some say 
years, in a state of inactivity, thinking, feeling, doing nothing, 
and being, as to any conscious, active existence, as though it 
had not been ? 

Besides, we know that the soul of the infant is not inactive. 
It is in full activity very early, and probably from the first. It 
begins to receive ideas from the outer world the first moment it 
enters it ; which shows that the intellect is not inactive. It has 
feeling, too, and commonly expresses it, almost with its first 
breath ; which shows that the sensibilities are active. The will 
is also active, visibly active, moving the different members of 
the body. 

But it will be said, although there may be action, there is no 
moral action, and of course no moral character. But if the 
action of the infant is not moral action, then it is mere animal 
action, and we are thrown back upon the absurd hypothesis of a 
mere animal existence. Besides, if moral action does not com- 
mence at the first, when does it commence ? When does the 
child cease to be a mere animal, and begin to be an intelligent 
moral being? Whenever this change takes place it is obviously 
a great change, and ought to be a very perceptible one. It 
should seem there could be no difficulty in determining the 
time. And yet who ever has determined it? Who can? 

But we have not yet done with the difficulties and absurdities 
of this hypothesis. If the infant has not yet any moral agency 
or character, is it an accountable being? Accountable for 
what? If called into judgment, as all human beings must be, 
what has it to account for? It has no moral character, has 
done nothing, either good or evil ; and for what shall it give an 
account ? 

But further : Is this infant, without any moral character, an 
immortal being? Most people are persuaded that deceased 
infants do live hereafter ; but on the theory we are considering, 
where do they live ? Not in heaven ; for they have done noth- 
ing good. They are not holy. Not in hell ; for they have no 
sin, and consequently deserve no punishment. In what region 

50 



394 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

of the future world then (if they exist at all) are they to be 
placed ? 

Such are some of the difficulties which beset the theory, that 
the infant, at the first, has no moral character, either sinful or 
holy. They lie equally against the Pelagian view, and the more 
plausible evangelical view. We dismiss them both ; and shall 
endeavor to show that the infant has a moral character from the 
first, and that this character is sinful. We touch not the ques- 
tion here, on what grounds infants are to be regarded as sinners. 
This point will be considered in another place. But the fact of 
their sinfulness, we hold to be susceptible of abundant proof. 
In support of it we urge, — 

1. That infants are the descendants of Adam, the father of us 
all. The Scriptures assure us that all the descendants of Adam, 
without an exception, are sinners. "Through the offence of 
one, the many are dead," — spiritually dead. • "By one man's 
disobedience, the many are made sinners." "By the offence of 
one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation " (Eom. v. 
15-19). There is no evading the force of these passages. 
They represent the posterity of Adam, universally, as somehow 
sinners, dead in sin, and under condemnation, in consequence of 
his first offence. We have only to ask, then, are infants among 
the posterity of Adam? Are they his children? 

2. We put this argument in a somewhat different shape, and 
urge the sinful character of infants from the fact that they are 
human beings, and belong to the human race. The sinfulness of 
the entire human race, without an exception, is taught in the 
plainest terms in the Bible. "Man's heart is evil from youth ; " 
— not this man, that, or the other ; but man in the general, — 
every man. "The heart of the sons of men is full of evil." 
This, too, is spoken of the sons of men generally, universally : 
Paul says : "We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, 
that they are all under sin." This verse, with those that follow, 
it (Eom. iii. 9-12), teaches, as plainly as words can teach any- 
thing, that mankind universally are sinners. Not only is no 
exception made, but all exception is, by the very terms, ex- 
cluded. "There is none that doeth good; no, not one." We 
have only to ask, then, as before : Are infants included among 



THE CHARACTEE OF INFANTS. 395 

mankind? Are they of the human species? If so, they are, 
by the testimony of the Creator, sinners. 

3. There are many other Scriptures which teach the same 
doctrine, — : some of which were remarked upon in my last Lec- 
ture. " That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; " that is, fleshly, 
carnal, sensual, sinful. It is as certain from these words that 
infant children are sinful, as it is that they are born of the flesh. 
David says : " The wicked are estranged from the womb ; they 
go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies " (Ps. lviii. 3). 
Does the Psalmist mean to say here, that the wicked are not 
estranged from God until they have learned to speak, and begin 
literally to tell lies ? Or does he mean as he says : K The wicked 
are estranged from the icomb ; they go astray as soon as they be 
born; " possessing, from the first, an evil, deceitful, lying spirit? 
The latter is clearly the sense of the passage ; and thus inter- 
preted, it is decisive to our present purpose. We have a par- 
allel passage in Isaiah xlviii. 8 : " I knew that thou wouldst deal 
very treacherously and wast called a transgressor from the 
womb." 

Paul, speaking of himself and [his Christian brethren, says : 
" And were by nature children of wrath, even as others " (Eph. 
ii. 3). To be a child of wrath is to be a sinner ; and such, the 
apostle assures us, mankind are by nature. The passage ob- 
viously teaches that men are sinners by nature, from their birth ; 
since whatever belongs to us by nature must be from birth. 

I quote but another passage. Paul says again : "If one died 
for all, then were all dead" (2 Cor. v. 14). The word dead 
here obviously means dead in sin, and such, the apostle tells us, 
is the state of all for whom Christ died. We have only to ask, 
therefore : Did Christ die for infants ? Have they any interest 
in his death? If so, then they are sinners, — dead in sin. 

4. That infants are in some way sinners is evident from their 
title to circumcision and baptism. No one doubts that infants, 
under the old dispensation, were circumcised ; and no Pedobap- 
tist doubts that they are now to be baptized. But what is the 
import of these religious rites ? What do they signify ? We 
understand both as signifying much the same ; the former, the 
circumcision of the heart, or regeneration ; the latter, " the 



396 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
But should religious rites be applied to infants, which denote 
the renewing, cleansing, purifying of the heart, if the heart is 
not impure, if it needs no cleansing, — in other words, if it is not 
sinful ? This argument was constantly urged by Augustine 
against the Pelagians : " Why baptize infants, if they have no 
sin?" And the argument, as it seems to us, is perfectly con- 
clusive. 

5. We infer, from the sufferings of infants, that they are sin- 
ners. That infants suffer early, and in some instances severely, 
there can be no doubt. And there are but three ways in which 
to account for their sufferings, in consistency with the goodness 
and justice of God. They must either suffer as mere animals, 
and on the same ground as other animals ; or they must suffer, 
as Christ did, by their own consent ; or they must suffer as 
sinners, and for their sins. The first supposition reduces 
infants to the condition of mere animals, which few persons 
will consent to do. The second, no one will claim to support. 
We are shut up, therefore, to the last. The infant suffers for 
.his sins. 

It may be said, perhaps, that the infant suffers for the sin of 
Adam. But those who say this will also say, that he is a par- 
taker of the sin of Adam, and guilty of it; so that, after all, 
he suffers for his own sin. 

6. That infants are sinners may be further proved by their 
death. We might infer as much as this from the mere fact of 
their dying (unless we will consent to place them in the same 
category with brute animals) , even if we had no light from the 
Scriptures on the subject. But the Scriptures do afford us 
light. They assure us, in the plainest terms, that, to all the 
sons and daughters of Adam, death is a fruit of sin. "By one 
man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death 
hath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Eom. v. 
12). It is as certain, from this and the parallel passages, that 
infants are sinners, as it is that they are subject to death : For 
to all the human species, the posterity of Adam, death is a fruit 
#nd a proof of sin. I only add, — 

7. The sinfulness of infants is proved from the fact of their 



THE CHARACTEK OF INFANTS. 397 

salvation. Many persons are unwilling to admit the sinful char- 
acter of infants, from a fear that it will endanger their salvation. 
But our reply to sucji is, that if infants are not sinners, they 
cannot be saved. Saved from what, if they have no sin ? Not 
from the punishment of sin ; for they have done nothing to 
deserve the punishment. Not from the curse of the law;. for 
they have never broken the law. Not from sin itself; for they 
have none. In short, there is nothing, on this ground, for the 
infant to be saved from, and his salvation, from the nature of 
the case, is impossible. Most 4 Christians hope and believe that 
those who die in infancy are saved. Such, certainly, is my own 
belief. But I could not indulge such a belief a moment, if I 
did not regard the infant as a sinner. 1 

We have now proved, we think conclusively, and from several 
sources of evidence, that infants are sinners. They have a 
moral character, and this is sinful. The question now arises, 
How are they sinful ? On what grounds ? In what way ? 

On these questions, those who are agreed as to the fact of 
infant sinfulness are divided into three classes. 1. Those who 
hold that we all existed and sinned in a previous life, and 
brought a sinful character into the world with us. 2. Those 
who teach that the infant has a sinful nature, but no actual sin. 
3. Those who hold that it has active moral affections from the 
first, and that these are selfish and sinful. Let us examine each 
of these theories or suppositions in their order. And, — 

First. That of an active, moral, and sinful existence, in a pre- 
vious state. This idea has its advocates in Germany, and is held 
by some in our own country. The supposition is, that at the 
time of the original revolt in heaven, avast multitude of angels,' 
of different orders, were drawn into it, and apostatized together. 
Of these, the great leaders, the more knowing and guilty ones, 
were driven at once from heaven, and sent down to hell. But 
towards the multitude, who were less guilty, God was pleased 
to entertain thoughts of mercy. He was pleased to reserve 
them for another probation, — a probation of grace, in the pres- 

1 We do not say that the infant dying without sin may not possibly go to heaven ; but 
he cannot go there through the salvation of the gospel; through the washing of regenera- 
tion and sprinkling of the blood of Christ. This mode of getting to heaven necessarily 
implies sin. 



398 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ent world. Being sent one after another into human bodies, 
these constitute the present race of men ; and such is the pro- 
bation which is passing here on the earth. m 

1. My first objection to this theory is, that it is a mere 
assumption, without one particle of proof. It has no proof 
from Scripture. It has none from consciousness, or memory, 
or (so far as I know) from any other source. 

2. According to this theory, the whole race of men are no 
other than fallen angels. But the Scriptures distinguish between 
fallen angels and men. They belong to different species. They 
constitute a different order of beings. Men were never angels, 
nor were the angels ever men. Man " was made a little lower 
than the angels" (Ps. viii. 5). 

3. The theory before us supposes that only a part of the sin- 
ning angels were thrust down to hell ; whereas the Scriptures 
teach that this was the fate of them all. No exceptions are 
made. " God spared not the angels that sinned," — not one of 
them (2 Pet. ii. 4). "The angels which kept not their first 
estate hath he reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, 
unto the judgment of the great day " ( Jucle 4) . 

4. The Scriptures further teach that the spirit of man is 
created when it enters the body, and not that it comes from a 
preexistent state. So it was with the first man. God did not 
take an old devil, and put it into Adam's new-made body, but 
"he breathed into. him the breath of life, and he became a living 
soul;" or, as Paul expresses it, he was made a living soul" (1 
Cor. xv. 45). And as it was with the first man, so it has been 
with men ever since. Accordingly, God is said to "form the 
spirit of man within him" (Zech. xii. 1). 

5. The Scriptures assure us that the primeval state of man 
on the earth was a holy state. " God made man upright " (Ecc. 
vii. 29). He made him in his own image and likeness, and 
blessed the new-made pair ; " and God saw everything that he 
had made, and behold it was very good" (Gen. i. 27-31). But 
on the theory before us, our first parents were as entirely cor- 
rupt before they eat the forbidden fruit, as afterwards. They 
were old transgressors from another world, who had been sent 
into bodies here, that they might have a new probation. 



THE CHARACTER OF INFANTS. 399 

6. The Scriptures expressly connect our state of sin and 
death with the fall of Adam, and not with a previous state of 
sin in some other world. This point was fully discussed in our 
last Lecture, and need not be further dwelt upon here. 

7. According to the Scriptures, we are to be called into 
judgment only for "the deeds done in the body" (2 Cor. v. 10). 
Whereas, on the view we are considering, our deeds in that 
previous life ought all of them come into the account in making 
up our destinies for eternity. 

For these reasons we reject the first theory of infant sinful- 
ness, and proceed to a consideration of the second; viz., that 
of an inherited sinful nature. And here let us inquire, first of 
all, what is meant by a sinful nature? If by nature is meant 
something active within us, — internal sinful affections which 
are natural to us, and coeval with our being? in this sense, 
infants may have a sinful nature. But if by nature is meant 
something in which we are not active, — something in the state 
and constitution of the soul, — something back of, and distinct 
from, all sinful affections, and out of which such affections grow ; 
in this sense of the. word in question, I cannot account for the 
sin of infants by supposing them to possess a sinful nature. A 
nature, in this sense, cannot be sinful. It is not a thing of 
which sin or holiness — in both of which' we are active — can be 
predicated. We may have a nature to sin, but not, in the sense 
above given, a sinful nature. But on this point I need not dwell, 
as it has been so fully considered in our previous Lectures. 

We reject, then, the second theory as to the sin of infants, 
and proceed to a consideration of the third ; viz., that the infant 
has active moral affections from the first, and that these are 
selfish and sinful. 

Having rejected the two former theories of infant sinfulness, 
we are, in a manner, shut up to this. If infants are sinners at 
all, it would seem they must be on the ground here proposed. 
And what objection to this supposition? If the infant is a 
human being, then, as I have before said, he has a human soul, 
with all the faculties of a human soul ; and these faculties, we 
know, are active. The intellect is active, receiving new ideas 
continually ; the sensibilities are active, and quick to feel ; the 



400 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

will also is visibly active. The voluntary muscles' begin to 
move, not as, ante partum, from the life of the mother, but from 
the child's own separate, individual life. Here, then, is a 
human soul, with all the faculties of a soul, and each of them 
in an active state. And what objection to the idea that there 
are internal exercises and affections which may be sinful ? 

My own belief is, that, in the conceptions ordinarily enter- 
tained as to the capacities of infant children, we do them great 
injustice. Their minds are much more vigorous and active than 
we are wont to imagine. It cannot be doubted that the child of 
ordinary capacity receives more new ideas, during the first year 
of its life, than in any subsequent year. It becomes familiar 
with all surrounding objects. It acquires,, among a thousand 
other things, the elements of a language. If it cannot speak its 
mother tongue (as many can), it can understand it in all its 
simpler and more common uses. And yet it has been made a 
question whether little children have souls, — whether they are 
capable of knowing anything. I would as soon doubt whether 
the man who raises such a question has a soul, as whether the 
child has of whom he speaks. 

But it will be said that sin is the transgression of a known 
law ; and as the infant has no knowledge of God or his law, 
therefore it is incapable of sinning. But how much is meant, 
when it is said that sin is the transgression of a known law? 
Must the child, before it can sin, be old enough to be instructed 
as to the existence and government of God, and the claims of 
his law ? Then many adult persons cannot sin. On this ground, 
the whole class of uneducated deaf mutes would be incapable of 
sinning ; and the same may be said of many of the heathen. 
These have never been instructed as to God or his law, and 
have no proper conceptions of either. It will not be pretended, 
therefore, that sin is the transgression of known law, in any 
such sense as this. 

Every human being may be supposed to have, in the language 
of Paul, "the law of God written in the heart" (Rom. ii. 15). 
In other words, every human being has the -capacity of moral 
perception, and has some degree of such perception, — some 
knowledge of the right, in distinction from the wrong. This 



THE CHAKACTER OF INFANTS. 401 

the heathen have. This the deaf-mutes have. This the child 
has very early, and may have, for aught we know to the con- 
trary, from the first. Why may it not as early perceive the 
more obvious differences between right and wrong as between 
light and darkness, or as between different colors and sounds? 
Of this law, written on the heart of every human being, sin is a 
trangression ; and if infants are human beings, they are capable 
of it. Yea, more than this, they are chargeable with it; for we 
have before proved that infants are sinners. 

Selfishness, in a human being, i's always sin. And of this 
hateful affection, children are as capable in infancy as they ever 
are. Indeed, they begin to manifest their selfishness, and 
various other forms of sin, as soon as they exhibit anj^thing, — 
almost as soon as they are born. How long do children ordina- 
rily live before' they begin to manifest peevishness, fretful ness, 
impatience, a stubborn will, resistance to parental authority, 
and other like form of wickedness ? 

But we read of some in the Bible, it is said, who had " no 
knowledge between good and evil." Such persons, surely, 
could not sin. Moses does indeed say, in a single instance, 
" Your children which, in that day, had no knowledge between 
good and evil, they shall inherit the land, and to them will I 
give it" (Deut. i. 39). But does Moses mean to represent 
these children as without the faculties of moral agents ; without 
any character, good or bad ; as having little more than an ani- 
mal existence? We do not so understand the passage. Moses 
here adopts the very common description of little children, 
whose knowledge is limited, who have had little or no instruc- 
tion respecting God and his law. Of such children it may be 
said, in a qualified sense, that they have " no knowledge between 
good and evil," — comparatively none ; while yet they may have 
the law of God written on the heart, and may habitually trans- 
gress it. Does any one doubt that the children in that congre- 
gation which came out of Egypt were selfish beings, or that 
selfishness is sin ? " 

* " No one," says Augustine, " is clear from sin in thy sight ; not even the infant, 
whose life is only one day." . . I " I have seen and observed an infant, full of envy 
and pale with anger. He looked at his fellow-suckling with bitterness in his counte- 
nance." — Confessions, Book i. 
51 



402 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

We have now shown that infant children have a moral and a 
sinful character, and on what grounds they are to be regarded 
as possessing such a character. Not that they come into the 
world sinners, from some preexistent state; nor that they have 
a sinful nature, but no actual sin ; but they are sinners, because 
they are selfish beings. They have, from the first, the germs, 
the buddings, the beginnings of selfishness; and all selfishness 
is sin. 

And if any one now asks, How are such infants to be saved? 
I answer, In much the same manner as adults. The adult has a 
selfish, sinful heart, which must be changed by the Holy Spirit, 
if he is ever saved ; and so has the infant. The adult must be 
forgiven, through the atonement of Christ ; and so must the 
infant. Both are saved, if saved at all, through the washing of 
regeneration, and the sprinkling of atoning blood. 

Those who regard the infant mind as disordered on account 
of the fall, but not sinful, believe that the Holy Spirit comes 
into it, and corrects its disorders ; and they call this correction 
regeneration. But it is no regeneration, in the gospel sense of 
the term. Regeneration is a change of the heart, of the moral 
affections, from sin to holiness. But the infant, according to 
the supposition, has no moral affections to be changed. It has 
no sinful heart to be renewed. It is as incapable of regenera- 
tion, in the proper sense of the term, as it is supposed to be of 
sin. And as to its indebtedness to Christ for the forgiveness of 
sin, this, too, is impossible to the infant; because it has no sins 
to be forgiven. 

But it will be asked, If the infant is capable of sinning, is it 
also of repenting of its sins, so that they maybe washed away? 
To this we reply, If the infant has moral affections at all, then 
these may be changed from selfishness to benevolence, from sin 
to holiness ; in which case it will have the element of repentance, 
though not perhaps the precise form of it. It has that which 
will be repentance the moment it comes to a sight and sense of 
its own sins. In this respect, the case of the renewed infant 
resembles that of the pious heathen. I can conceive of a heathen 
who may be saved by Christ, though he has never heard of him, 
and of course has never exercised that particular form of holi- 



THE CHARACTER OF INFANTS. 403 

ness which we call faith in Christ. But if he is truly pious, he 
has the element of faith, though not the form. He has that 
which will be faith, the moment he gets a view of Christ, or 
comes where he is. And so of the renewed infant. Its affec- 
tions being changed from sin to holiness, it has now the element 
of all holiness. And its holiness will assume the different forms 
of repentance, faith, submission, love, whenever the appropriate 
objects of these several graces are presented to its mind. 

It is a recommendation of the view here given as to the char- 
acter and prospects of infants, that it places them among the 
human race, and makes the ground of their salvation the same 
as that of the rest of mankind. If they are saved at all, as we 
hope and trust they are, they are saved, like other sinners, on 
the ground of the gospel. They are renewed, pardoned, adopted 
into the family of God, and become his children. And when 
they are taken up to heaven, they will stand in the midst of the 
ransomed throng and sing: "Not unto us, not unto us, but to 
him who hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own 
blood, be all the glory of our salvation." 

There is yet another advantage of the view we have taken. 
It removes all embarrassment as to the time when children be^in 
to act for themselves, and holds out the strongest inducements 
to parental fidelity. The question is frequently asked : "When 
do children begin to be moral agents, to act for themselves, and 
to be guilty of actual sin?" On the theories we reject, these 
are impracticable questions. They never have been answered, 
and never can be. But on the theory we propose, there is no 
difficulty. The child begins to be a moral agent, to act for 
himself, and to commit sin, from the first. It receives its soul, 
as Adam did his, with the first breath of life, and sets up for 
itself a distinct moral agent as soon as it is born. Its capacities 
are indeed feeble, its exercises feeble, and its sin of small ac- 
count, compared with what it will be, if not forsaken, in future 
years ; still it is selfishness, it is sin, it is of the same hateful 
nature as other sin, and, if left unchecked, unrestrained, will 
soon break forth into the most frightful forms of wickedness. 

And now, if it be asked, How long may this little one's salva- 
tion be hoped for, as an infant, in case it is removed by death ? 



404 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

I answer, Its salvation is not to be looked for at all, except as 
it is renewed by the Holy Spirit, and cleansed in the atoning 
blood of Christ. So long as the infant is incapable of parental 
instruction, it may be hoped that the Spirit will do for it, with- 
out such instruction, what, later in life, it could only be expected 
to do with it. And as soon as the period of instruction arrives, 
— and arrive it will very soon, — if parents are faithful to the 
souls of their children, they have abundant reason to hope that, 
living or dying, God will bless them with his salvation. 

Let them, then, commence early, and pursue assiduously,'the 
work which God has given them to do. ' From the first, their 
children should be the objects of earnest prayer. From the 
first, they should be consecrated and devoted to the Lord. And 
as the infant mind begins to open to receive impressions from 
parental lips, let their "doctrine drop as the rain, and distil as 
the dew; as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the 
showers upon the grass." For although, as we said, so long as 
the child is incapable of parental instruction, the Spirit may be 
relied upon to bestow his blessing without it ; yet the Holy 
Spirit will never connive at parental unfaithfulness. He will 
not make himself, in this way, the minister of sin. Parents 
who carelessly neglect their duties to their children, and trust 
to the Holy Spirit for their conversion, may be terribly disap- 
pointed. It will be no more than justice if they should be. 

Let parents, then, be careful to do their work, and the Holy 
Spirit will do his. But let them neglect their appropriate work, 
and trifle with their obligations as parents, and there is little 
hope either for their children or themselves. 



THE ATONEMENT — ITS NECESSITY. 405 



LECTURE XXXVI. 

THE ATONEMENT— ITS NECESSITY. 

The word atonement occurs but once in our English New 
Testament, and is the translation of a Greek word (xaraXluyrjv) 
which, in every other instance, is rendered reconciliation. An 
atonement, therefore, in the sense of our translators, is a recon- 
ciliation . But the word has undergone a slight change of mean- 
ing within the last two hundred years. As now used it denotes, 
not so much a reconciliation, as that which is done to ojpen and 
prepare the way for a reconciliation. As used by evangelical 
Christians, it refers to what has been done by our Lord Jesus 
Christ, to open a way for the recovery and salvation of sinful 
men, that so a reconciliation may be effected between them and 
their Maker. 

There were atonements under the former dispensation ; but 
these were of a merely typical character. The blood of beasts 
was designed to prefigure, to shadow forth, the great atonement 
which, in the fulness of time, was to be made by the blood of 
Christ upon the cross. We shall have no occasion to refer to 
these typical atonements, except as they serve to throw light 
upon the important doctrine now before us. 

It may be proper to say, in passing, that the word atonement 
is seldom used by the older Protestant theologians, except in 
reference to the typical atonements of the Old Testament. It 
does not occur in any of the confessions or catechisms of the 
Reformed churches, and probably not in any of the theological 
writings of the seventeenth century. Not even President 
Edwards or Dr. Hopkins has aught to say of the atonement of 
Christ, under that specific name. They have much to say of 
his great work of redemption, and what is now called the atone- 
ment is merged in that. * 



406 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

The separating of the atonement from the more general doc- 
trine of redemption has tended much to simplify the subject, 
and so has been a real gain to theolog} 7- . The atonement of 
Christ is a specific work. It relates to what he did and suffered 
to open a way for the salvation of sinners. Redemption is a 
more general work, including all that Christ has ever done, or 
will do, in promoting and securing the salvation of his people. 
The atonement is universal, as* to its sufficiency. Redemption, 
in the full sense of the term, applies only to the elect. The 
work of atonement was finished when Christ bowed his head 
and gave up the ghost. The work of redemption is not yet 
finished, nor will it be until all the elect are gathered in. 

In entering upon the discussion before us, our first inquiry 
will be as to the necessity of an atonement. There are those 
who doubt this necessity. The sinner is bound to search out 
his sins, and when he sees them to repent of them. He is able, 
and is justly required to repent ; and when he does repent he 
may be forgiven and saved. There is nothing in the way of his 
salvation but his impenitence, and this difficulty he is well able 
to overcome. Or, if he is not able of himself to come to 
repentance, God surely can bring him to repentance without 
first resorting to the strange expedient of offering up his own 
Son upon the cross. 

But if the death of Christ was not needed to make an atone- 
ment for sin, it is hard to see why he should have died at all. 
It is agreed by all that Christ was a perfectly holy being. Of 
course, he could not have died for his own sins. It is agreed, 
too, that his death took place in the providence of God. And 
how are we to account for such a dispensation ; how vindicate 
the propriety or the justice of it, but upon the supposition of a 
needed atonement? If Christ's death was necessary to make 
an atonement for sin, and if in view of such necessity he was 
willing to die, then there is no difficulty. The reasons of the 
transaction and the justice of it, so far as the hand of God was 
concerned in it, are clear. But on any other supposition, we 
know not what to think of such an event, or how to account for 
it, in consistency with the rectitude of Providence. That God 
should bring an innocent man to the cross, when he had done 



THE ATONEMENT — ITS NECESSITY. 407 

nothing' to deserve such an infliction, and had not consented to 
it ; bring him there, like any other victim, in spite of himself, 
and without any indispensable necessity, either on his own 
account, or that of others ; how are we to justify such a trans- 
action? Who can believe it? If it is hard to conceive (as some 
tell us) why the just should be suffered, with his own consent, 
to die for the unjust ; is it not vastly more difficult to see why 
he should be made or suffered to die for nothing, — neither for 
his own sins nor for those of the world ? 

The necessity of an atonement, by the death of Christ, is 
plainly taught in the Scriptures. Our Saviour himself taught 
this doctrine. " The Son of man must suffer many things, and 
be rejected of the elders, and be killed, and after three days rise 
again " (Mark viii. 31). "The Son of man must be delivered 
into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day 
rise again" (Luke xxiv. 7). "As Moses lifted up the serpent 
in the wilderness, even* so must the Son of man be lifted up, that 
whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life" (John iii. 14). " Thus it is written, and thus it 
behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead on the third 
day" (Luke xxiv. 47). Paul reasoned with the Thessalonians 
out of the Scriptures, "opening and alleging that Christ must 
needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead" (Acts 
xvii. 3). 

Ferhaps it will be said that the necessity indicated in these 
passages results only from the fact, that Christ's sufferings and 
death have been predetermined and predicted, and the prediction 
must be fulfilled. But this, if it be admited, only places the 
argument one step further back. For why, if there was no in- 
herent necessity for Christ's sufferings and death, — why were 
they predetermined ? Why predicted ? Why did it enter into 
the eternal purpose of God, that thus it should be ? 

The necessity of Christ's suffering, as a satisfaction for sin, is 
clearly indicated in what took place in the Garden of Geth- 
semane. " O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from 
me ! " " Abba, Father, all things are possible with thee ; take 
away this cup from me." And why was not the cup of suffer- 
ing taken away ? Why was not such a thing possible ? Let 



408 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

those who think an atonement of suffering unnecessary, answer 
these questions if they can. 

The necessity of an atonement in order to forgiveness is 
further taught in the typical atonements of the Old Testament. 
The sacrifice of the victim, in those days, was never intended as 
a means of repentance,' or a substitute for it. It rather implied 
and required repentance. The offerer must be already penitent, 
else his sacrifice would not be accepted. Why, then, on the 
ground we oppose, was the sacrifice enjoined at all? The 
offerer is already penitent, and penitence, we are told, is enough. 
Why, then, must the innocent lamb be slain, and his blood be 
sprinkled upon the mercy-seat ? Is not here conclusive proof 
that mere penitence is not enough ; that an expiation is de- 
manded ; that somethiug must be done to satisfy the law and 
the justice of God, or not even the penitent sinner can be par- 
doned and saved ? 

We have further evidence of the same truth, in that faith is 
made one of the indispensable conditions of salvation. Repent- 
ance is, indeed, an indispensable condition. We must repent, 
in order to be forgiven. And if mere repentance was enough, 
this ought to be the only condition. But there is also the indis- 
pensable condition of faith, — faith in Christ, — faith in a cru- 
cified Redeemer. " As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder- 
ness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever 
believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 
Now this requisition of faith shows conclusively that repentance 
alone is not sl sufficient ground of pardon. The Son of man 
must be lifted up. He must bleed and die upon the cross. And 
he must be accepted, trusted, believed in, as an atoning sacri- 
fice, or there is no salvation for us. 

Those who flatter themselves that repentance is alone suffi- 
cient to satisfy God's justice, as a moral governor, would do well 
to apply their theory to another kind of justice, — that which 
regulates the dealings of man with man. A honestly owes B a 
sum of money, and justice requires that it should be paid. But 
A is very sorry that he has got into B's debt. He humbles and 
blames himself, and heartily repents for so doing. But do his 
repentings cancel the claims of justice against, him, or furnish 



THE ATONEMENT — ITS NECESSITY. 409 

any sufficient grounds for his being released from his obliga- 
tions ? That would be a summary way of clearing off old debts, 
for the creditor to feel obliged to release the debtor from his 
obligations, so soon as he was sorry that he had contracted them. 
Every one can see that such a principle could not be tolerated 
in application to commercial justice ; and why should it operate 
any more favorably when applied to governmental justice? The 
claims of the latter are not less stringent and inviolable than 
those of the former ; and if the principle would work nothing 
but confusion in the former case, going to dissolve all the bands 
of commercial intercourse, how can it be shown that it would 
not work as disastrously, and even more so, in the latter? 

The necessity of an atonement is often felt — deeply, painfully 
felt — under human governments. It was felt by King Darius, 
when " he set his heart on Daniel to deliver him " from the 
lion's den, and " labored till the going down of the sun to 
deliver him," but could not. Could Darius have hit upon some 
expedient, by which the authority of his law and government 
could have been as fully sustained, in delivering Daniel, as in 
punishing him ; in other words, could he have devised and pro- 
vided a sufficient atonement for Daniel ; in that case he might 
safely have delivered him. But as this was found to be impos- 
sible, nought remained but that Daniel must go into the den of 
lions. 

The same necessity was felt by the elder Brutus, when his 
sons had conspired against the Roman commonwealth. Could 
a sufficient atonement have been made for them, they might 
have been spared ; but as none could be devised, the father was 
obliged to pass sentence of death upon them, and to stand by 
and see it executed. 

The necessity of an atonement is ^continually and sometimes 
painfully felt in smaller governments; A child in a family, or 
a scholar in school, trangresses some established law, and is 
exposed to punishment. The father or master does not wish to 
punish, and he sets himself to devise some way, some expedient, 
by which his authority can be maintained, and the infliction 
be spared. If any such method can be devised, it is of the 
nature of an atonement. But if none is possible, the infliction 

52 



410 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

must follow, or the authority of the parent or master is weak- 
ened, arid may be subverted. 

I have employ eel these illustrations, for the purpose of show- 
ing and impressing the necessity of an atonement, if sinners are 
to be saved under the government of God. But perhaps the 
strongest argument, after all, for such necessity, grows out of 
the fact of an atonement, as certified to us in the Scriptures. 
The Bible does teach, in a great variety of forms, and in the 
plainest terms, that Christ's death upon the cross was of an 
expiatory character; that he died to make an atonement for sin. 
Thus he is said to have been "wounded for our transgressions" 
and "braised for our iniquities." He is said to have "borne 
our sins ; " to have " purged our sins ; " to have " suffered for 
our sins ;" to have " died for our sins ;" and to have " shed his 
blood for the remission of sins." He is said to have " redeemed 
us to God by his blood ; " and to have " redeemed us from the 
curse of the law, having been made a curse for us." He "laid 
down his life for us." He " gave himself for us, an offering and 
a sacrifice to God." He "gave his life a ransom for many." 
He was " delivered for our offences." " He tasted death for 
every man." He "is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for 
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." There is 
no end to representations such as these, taken from all parts of 
the Bible, and teaching as plainly as words can teach anything, 
that the death of Christ was an offering, an expiation, an atone- 
ment for the sins of men. They teach the fact of an atonement, 
and by necessary consequence, the necessity of it; for surely, if 
it had not been necessary, it never had been made. God would 
not have sent his Son into the world to" take upon himself our 
nature and die in our stead, had there been no need of such a 
sacrifice. He would never have been at the expense of provid- 
ing such an atonement, without a most urgent and indispensable 
necessity. 

But if an atonement for sin was necessary, why was it neces- 
sary ? Why must the Son of God come down and die, to open 
a way for the salvation of sinful men? Though these questions 
have been answered in part, in the remarks already made, still, 



THE ATONEMENT— ITS NECESSITY. 411 

it may be necessary to give them a more particular considera- 
tion. And we answer, — 

1. An atonement was necessary, in order that sinners might 
be humbled and brought to repentance. It is often insisted, as 
before remarked, that mere repentance is enough to insure for- 
giveness, without an atonement. But without an atonement, 
who had ever repented ? How. much true repentance had been 
found among men ? It is in consequence of the atonement that 
the Holy Spirit is given, without whose influences no human 
being had ever surrendered his heart to God. It is in conse- 
quence of the atonement, that we are favored with the day and 
the means of grace ; that the light of hope has dawned upon us, 
and an opportunity is afforded us to turn from our sins and live. 

We do not deny, the natural ability of sinful men to repent, 
or (which is the same) that they can repent if they will. But 
will they repent without an atonement ? Have they ? Where 
have they? The devils have natural ability to repent, and are 
under obligations to repent ; but they never did, and they never 
will. And no more would one of the human race ever have 
repented, had not an atonement been made for him on the 
cross. 

We would not say that no sinner of our race ever came to re- 
pentance without a knowledge of the atonement ; though such 
instances, especially of adult sinners, it is believed are very rare. 
It is the preaching of the cross, emphatically, which results in 
the conversion of souls. It is at the foot of the cross, ordinarily, 
that the tear of penitence begins to flow. But we do insist and 
repeat, that, had no atonement been provided, not a soul of our 
race had ever repented, of his sins. There had been no more 
true repentance among men on the earth than there is among 
the damned in the other world. "Him hath God exalted to be 
a Prince and* a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel, and 
remission of sins " (Acts v. 31). 

But this necessity for the atonement, after all, is not the most 
urgent and fundamental. There is a necessity greater than this. 
We remark, therefore, — 

2. The atonement of Christ was necessary to sustain and 
honor the broken law of God, to vindicate his authority, and 



41 2 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

satisfy his glorious justice. In carrying into effect his eternal 
purposes, God has undertaken to be, not only the universal 
Creator and Disposer, but a moral Governor. He has sur- 
rounded himself with intelligent creatures, — free, moral, re- 
sponsible agents, — proper subjects of law and government; 
and he has undertaken to administer a moral government over 
them. He has undertaken to .govern them, not by physical 
force, but by laws, motives, and moral considerations ; by a 
system of just rewards and punishments. But, in order to the 
success of this vast undertaking, it is obviously necessary for 
the Supreme Euler, as it is for any other ruler, to sustain law. 
He must not suffer his law to be trifled with and trampled on. 
He must maintain it inviolate, in all its strictness and strength, 
its authority and purity, or his government dof law will be sub- 
verted and overthrown. 

And here lies the necessity of an adequate atonement, if 
transgressors of the divine law are to be forgiven and saved. 
The law can be sustained, by punishing the transgressors, as they 
deserve ; by inflicting upon them the threatened penalty. Can 
it be as fully sustained in any other way? Can any expedient 
be devised, by which the broken law can be honored, and God's 
righteous regard for it be displayed, and all the ends of govern- 
ment be secured, as fully, as perfectly, as they would be by 
Inflicting the penalty ? Such an expedient, if such an one be 
possible, would be an atonement, — a full and adequate atone- 
ment, i On the ground of such an atonement, God could forgive 
and save sinners on such conditions as he was pleased to appoint, • 
and yet not detract one iota from his law. His law would stand 
as inviolate, and his government as strong, as though the 
threatened penalty had been executed. But without some such 
expedient, or, in other words, without a sufficient atonement, 
to pardon and save sinners would be a moral impossibility. It 
could never be tolerated under the government of God. It 
could never consist with the stability and perfection of that 
government, or even with its continued existence. 

At the hazard of some repetition, we wish to press this point, 
and to give it prominence, — the necessity of an atonement to 
honor and sustain law, God's law has been transgressed here 



THE ATONEMENT — ITS NECESSITY. 413 

on the earth, — flagrantly transgressed. A whole world of sin- 
ners have cast off the authority of their Sovereign, and risen up 
in arms against him. God does not wish to punish them, or 
one of them. He has no pleasure in their death. But what 
can he do? His law must be honored. His holy government 
must be sustained, or be given up. It can be sustained by the 
infliction of the penalty on all those who have transgressed. 
Can it be in any other way ? Is any substitute for this terrible 
infliction possible ? Can any sufficient atonement be made ? If 
an atonement can be made, then God may consistently pardon 
and save sinners ; but if not, they must all suffer, or God's law 
and government must suffer. They must be punished as they 
deserve, or his holy government must be undermined and 
destroyed. 

It is our happiness to know that, in the infinite wisdom and 
goodness of God, an expedient of salvation has been devised 
and executed. An atonement for sinners has been made. It 
was made in the sufferings and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
When we deserved to die, he died for us. He bore our sins in 
his own body on the tree. Christ did not come into our world 
and die here for nothing. He did not die for a trifle. He 
would not take upon himself our nature and flesh, and endure 
all the agonies of the garden and the cross, without a most 
urgent necessity. We have seen that there was such a necessity 
for his death ; and the grounds and reasons of that necessity 
have now been exhibited. 

Our next inquiry will relate to the nature and efficacy of 
Christ's atonement. In what did it consist? And how does it 
avail for our redemption ? But these inquiries will be reserved 
for the following Lecture. 



414 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LBOTUEB XXXVII. 

THE ATONEMENT— ITS NATURE AND EFFICACY. 

In ray last Lecture I spoke of the necessity of an atonement, 
more especially in its bearing upon the law and the government 
of God. I am now to treat of its nature and efficacy. And, 

First, of its nature. In what did the atonement of Christ 
consist? Did it consist in his perfect holiness, his perfect obedi- 
ence to the divine law? Or in his sufferings and death? Or in 
both? 

As the sufferings and death of Christ were voluntarily endured, 
they may be regarded as constituting a species of obedience; 
and so they are regarded in the Scriptures. He was " obedient 
unto death" (Phil. ii. 8).. But this, which is sometimes called 
Christ's passive obedience, is not that about which we now 
inquire. Christ's "obedience unto death" is the same as his 
voluntary sufferings and death. But the obedience, which has 
been thought by some to enter into the nature of the atone- 
ment, and to constitute a part or the whole of it, is his personal 
obedience to the divine law; or, in other words, his personal 
holiness. 

We are disposed to attach a high importance to the perfect, 
spotless holiness of the Saviour. It was indispensable to the 
work of atonement. It was that without which he could have 
made no atonement. He must be perfectly sinless himself, or 
he could not make an acceptable offering for the sins of others. 
"For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, un- 
dented, and separate from sinners ; who needeth not daily," like 
the priests in Israel, " to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, 
and then for the people" (Heb. vii. 26). Here, the necessity 
of the spotless holiness of the Saviour, in order that he might 



THE ATONEMENT ITS NATURE AND EFFICACY. 415 

perform the work of atonement, is clearly set forth. Still, in 
strictness of speech it can hardly be said, that the atonement of 
Christ consisted at all in his personal obedience or holiness. 

In the first place, Christ's obedience could not meet the chief 
necessity of an atonement, as before explained. That which is 
needed is something to sustain law ; something to stand in place 
of the threatened penalty of the law ; something which will 
answer all the purposes of moral government as well as the 
execution of the penalty. An expedient of this nature would be 
an atonement. Anything short of it would not be. Now it is 
obvious that the perfect holiness of Christ was no substitute for 
the penalty threatened to transgressors. It was not adapted to 
be. It could not be. There was no need of suffering here. 
The penalty of the law consists in suffering, and an equivalent, 
a substitute, must be of the same nature. 

A like view of the subject is presented in the typical atone- 
ments of the Old Testament. These all prefigured the atone- 
ment of Christ, and may be supposed, so far as they go, to 
prefigure it accurately. Now it was indispensable to the accept- 
ableness of an offering under the law, that the animal offered 
should be perfect in its kind. It must be icithout sjjot or blem- 
ish; thus indicating the necessity of the spotless character of 
Christ. Accordingly, our Saviour is spoken of by Peter as " a 
Lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet. i. 14). Still, 
the typical atonement did not consist in the spotlessness of the 
victim, but in the shedding of its blood. It was the blood, 
emphatically, that made the atonement. So the atonement of 
Christ, prefigured by that of the law, must consist essentially 
in the shedding of his blood. 

We have the same view presented in the literal language of 
the Bible. The utmost stress is laid everywhere upon the cross, 
the blood, the death of Christ, as that in which the expiation, 
the atonement properly consists. We hardly need quote pas- 
sages, having referred to so many in the last Lecture. Christ 
is said to have been a sacrifice, an offering, an oblation, a pro- 
pitiation for sin. He is said to have suffered for our sins, to 
have died for our sins, to have been delivered for our offences, 
and to have been made a curse for us, in hanging on a tree, 



416 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

The strongest expressions are used in different parts of the 
Bible, to set forth* the nature of Christ's atonement, as consisting 
in his sufferings and death. 

And while so great stress is laid on the death of Christ, we 
find his obedience spoken of only in a few instances, and in 
most of these, if not all (as the connection' shows) the reference 
is to what has been called his passive obedience, or his obedience 
unto death. " Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled 
himself, and became obedient unto death" (Phil. ii. 8). "Yet 
learned he obedience by the things that he suffered" (Heb. v. 
8). "By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous " 
(Rom. v. 19). These are, perhaps, the only passages in which 
the obedience of Christ is directly spoken of in the Bible. TJie 
first two refer, certainly, to his obedience in suffering ; and by 
the most judicious commentators, the last passage quoted is 
interpreted in the same way. 

But it will be said, although we do not find much in the Bible 
on the subject of Christ's obedience, very much is said respect- , 
ing his righteousness, which amounts to the same thing. " This 
is the name wherewith he shall be called, The Lord our right- 
eousness " (Jer. xxiii. 6). It is admitted that, in the matter of 
justification, much stress is laid in the Scriptures on the right- 
eousness of Christ ; but .we do not admit that this is the same as 
his personal obedience or holiness. The original words, trans- 
lated " obedience " and " righteousness, " are not the same, and 
not synonymous ; neither is this true of the English words. 
Obedience to the law is the same as virtue or holiness in the 
general ; while righteousness, in its original and proper signifi- 
cation, is justice, equity, honesty, rectitude, right. "He shall 
judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his 
truth" (Ps. xcvi. 13). "With righteousness shall he judge the 
poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth." 
" Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the 
plummet, and the hail shall sweep away the refuges of lies " (Is. 
xi. 4 ; xxviii. 17). A principal source of error in regard to this 
subject has been the confounding of the terms obedience and 
righteousness, regarding them as af the same import, when they 
are not. Christ is not called by the prophet " Jehovah our obe- 



• THE ATONEMENT — ITS NATURE AND EFFICACY. 417 

dience" but "Jehovah our righteousness;" that is, Jehovah 
through whom we are accounted as righteous, are justified; 
without shutting us up to the notion of justification by the 
imputed obedience of the Saviour. 

But it will be said, unless we consider the obedience of Christ 
as entering into the nature of the atonement, his atonement can- 
not be a full ground of justification. * Justification involves, not 
merely a remission of the incurred penalty of the law, which is 
the same as forgiveness, but also a restoration to forfeited favor 
and happiness ; and although the mere sufferings of Christ may 
be a sufficient ground of the former, they are not so of the 
latter. We need the imputed obedience and merits of Christ to 
lay a foundation for our being restored ; and hence his obedi- 
ence must be regarded as constituting an essential part of the 
atonement. 

This is not the place to go into a consideration of objections 
to the doctrine of justification by the imputed obedience and 
merits of Christ. We pass these over entirely ; and would 
simply say, that the principal ground of difficulty on the subject 
seems to us to lie in not rightly conceiving of the penalty of 
God's law. This penalty, in its fullest extent, is both privative 
and positive. It involves the loss of God's favor and the incur- 
ring of his displeasure ; the loss of the rest and happiness of 
heaven, and the endurance of eternal miseries in hell. Such is 
the full penalty of the law of God, for the removal of which the 
atonement of Christ furnishes the sufficient and only foundation. 
In procuring the salvation of those who embrace it, it removes, 
first, the positive part of the penalty, so that they are no longer 
liable to suffer the pains of eternal death. It removes, secondly, 
the privative part, and thus restores them to the forfeited favor 
of God, and to the happiness of heaven. All this is implied in 
freeing the returning sinner from the full penalty of the law ; or, 
which is the same, in forgiveness ; using the term forgiveness in 
the widest sense. But forgiveness, in this sense, is the same, 
precisely, as justification ; the one restoring the subject of it as 
much as the other. And so the case was regarded by the 
Apostle Paul. He repeatedly speaks of full forgiveness and 
justification as the same. "Through this man is preached unto 

53 



418 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. ' 

you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are 
justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by 
the law of Moses" (Acts xiii. 38). "Being justified freely by 
his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his 
blood, to, declare his righteousness for the remission of sins" 
(Rom. iii. 24). "David t&so describeth the blessedness of the 
man unto whom God impute th righteousness without works," 
or, which is the same, justifieth, " saying, Blessed are they whose 
iniquities are forgiven, and whose sin is covered" (Rom. iv. 6). 
The apostle here quotes from the thirty-second Psalm, in which 
David sets forth the blessedness of him who had humbly con- 
fessed his sins, and been forgiven, representing such an one as 
justified; which shows that in Paul's theology, justification and 
forgiveness are the same. 

Calvin and other eminent theologians have taught the same 
doctrine. "The righteousness of faith," says Calvin, "is a rec- 
onciliation with God, which consists solely in the remission of 
sins." "The Lord cannot receive any one into favor or fellow- 
ship with himself without making him from a sinner to be a 
righteous person ; and this is accomplished by the remission of 
sins." "It appears, then, that those whom God receives are 
made righteous no otherwise than as they are purified, by being 
cleansed from all their defilements, by the remission of their 
sins; so that such a righteousness may be denominated, in one 
word, a remission of sins." 1 

From these statements it appears 1hat justification and full 
forgiveness are the same ; and hence the sufficiency of the suf- 
ferings and death of Christ to procure the one as much as the 
other. And there is no need of bringing in the personal obe- 
dience of Christ in order to make the atonement a sufficient 
ground of justification. His personal obedience or holiness is 
indispensably connected with the atonement, as before re- 
marked ; so indispensably, that without it no atonement could 
ever have been made. Still, the atonement itself consisted, not 
in the obedience of Christ, but in the shedding of his blood. 

1 Institutes. Book iii. chap. xi. sect. 21. 



THE ATONEMENT — ITS NATUKE AND EFFICACY. 419 

We are next to speak of the efficacy of Christ's death, or the 
manner in which it availed to make an atonement for sin. 

Some have believed that, by suffering for us, Christ literally 
paid our debt to divine justice. So taught Anselin, in the 
twelfth century, and Aquinas in the thirteenth, and many others 
of later date, in both the Romish and Protestant churches. But 
to this theory there are insuperable objections. In the first 
place, the demands of strict governmental justice against us are 
not of the nature of a debt, and cannot be cancelled as such. 
And then, if they were, and if the sufferings of Christ had can- 
celled them, we should owe nothing to the law. The law would 
no longer have any demands against us. We should need no 
forgiveness, nor would forgiveness be possible ; as there would 
be nothing to be forgiven. 

Some have said that the death of Christ availed to make an 
atonement for sinners, not by paying a literal debt, but by his 
suffering for them the strict and proper penalty of the law. But 
to this statement, also, there are insuperable objections. The 
first grows out of the very nature of the penalty in question. 
This is eternal death, — an eternal separation from God and all 
good, and the eternal destruction of body and soul in hell. It 
involves all the agonies of the bottomless pit ; not the least part 
of which are the direct results of indulged sin ; the indulgence 
of the most hateful, painful passions ; the stings and reproaches 
of conscience ; dissatisfaction with God and his government; 
and a perpetual, burning sense of his displeasure. Did our 
Saviour suffer all these, or any of them?' Being perfectly holy, 
was it possible that he should ? How could such a being endure 
the pains of unsated malice, envy, and revenge? How could he 
suffer from the stings and reproaches of conscience ? In other 
words, bow could he suffer the pains and agonies of the bottom- 
less pit, which go to constitute the proper penalty of the law ? 

But suppose that Christ did suffer all this. Suppose him to 
have suffered, not only as much as all his elect would suffer in 
hell forever, but the very same, "agony for agony, and groan 
for groan;" would he, even then, have suffered the proper 
penalty of the law? The penalty of the law is denounced upon 
the transgressor, and upon no one else. "In the day that thou 



420 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." " The soul that siuueth, 
it shall die." Such is the language which' the law uses, iu 
setting forth its penalty ; and we see, from the very terms em- 
ployed, that the penalty can fall upon none but the transgressor. 
Another may step in, and endure a full equivalent, and so make 
a full expiation ; but he cannot endure the proper penalty, even 
though he should suffer in kind and amount the same. 

There is yet another objection to the theory before us, — the 
same as that before considered. If Christ has suffered the full 
penalty of the law for us, then the law has no further demands 
against us. "VYe need no forgiveness, nor is forgiveness possible. 
There is nothing left to be forgiven. Forgiveness is a remission 
of the incurred penalty of the law. But by the supposition, the 
penalty has all been endured. It no longer remains to be re- 
mitted. God will not exact it twice ; nor can he remit it, when 
it is no longer due. 

But it is argued, on the other side, that justice demands the 
full penalty of the law, which we, by transgression, have 
incurred ; nor will it be satisfied with anything less. Hence, if 
justice is satisfied in the atonement of Christ, be must have 
suffered the full penalty of the law. But is justice of such a 
nature that it can be satisfied with nothing but the infliction of 
the literal penalty? Does it admit of no substitute, no equiv- 
alent? Then it precludes entirely, and always, the exercise of 
mercy. The demands of justice must, on this ground, be vio- 
lated, or mercy is impossible. 

But we do not so understand the claims of justice ; nor can 
they be so understood by any one who hopes in the mercy of 
the gospel. The demands of justice are answered when its ends 
are answered ; and these may be as fully answered by a substi- 
tute as in the punishment of the transgressor. And when all 
the ends of justice are thus met and answered ; when the honor 
of the law is sustained, and the authority of the sovereign is 
fully vindicated ; then there is room for the exercise of mercy. 
Then the penalty of the law may be remitted, and no interest 
will suffer in consequence. The government is as strong in 
bestowing pardon, as, under other circumstances, it would be in 
inflicting punishment. There is no injustice in treating sinners 



THE ATONEMENT — ITS NATUEE AND EFFICACY. 421 

better than they deserve, when this can be done in consistency 
with other objects and interests. Injustice rather consists in 
treating them worse than they deserve ; a mode of treatment 
most abhorrent to all the ends and aims of the atonement, and 
which none will ever receive at the hands of God. 

It has been objected again to the views which have been ex- 
hibited, that the veracity of God is pledged to inflict the penalty 
of the law, in case of transgression ; and if it be not inflicted 
upon the sinner, it must be upon Christ. There is no other 
way in which the sinner's salvation can be reconciled with the 
divine veracity. In reply to this, we would ask, Does the set- 
ting forth of the penalty of a law, in the form of a threatening, 
absolutely bind the veracity of the sovereign to inflict it ? If it 
does, then certainly it binds him to inflict it on the transgressor, 
and a remission of the penalty is, in every case, a violation of 
truth. There is no avoiding this conclusion. The law does not 
merely denounce a penalty, but denounces it upon the trans- 
gressor; not upon him or a substitute, but upon him only. 
"The soul that sinneth, it" and not some other soul, "shall 
die." Such is the unequivocal language of law ; and if this 
pledges the veracity of the sovereign, forgiveness is forever 
impossible. God cannot violate his truth ; and if his truth is 
really pledged in the threatening, it must be executed to the 
letter ; and what sinner can ever be saved ? 

But does a simple threatening, in all cases, bind the veracity 
of the sovereign ? We think not. A threatening may be so 
connected with a promise, or be so involved in a covenant, as 
to pledge veracity ; but a simple threatening of law, setting 
forth the penalty of the law, does not pledge it. The subject 
is not so understood among men ; nor can it be so understood in 
respect to God. In dispensing pardon, a human government 
does not necessarily violate its truth ; neither does the divine 
government. Just legislation, like justice itself, implies no ne- 
cessity for punishment, except as the ends of punishment may 
require it. Let these eyids be answered, and truth would lose 
the character of a virtue, if it should now prove a barrier to the 
free exercise of mercy. "The penalty of a law," says John 
Howe, "is not to be taken for a prediction of what shall be, but 



422 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

a commination, expressing what is deserved, or most justly may 
be." " They who think otherwise," says Calvin " labor under a 
delusion as to the meaning of threatenings, which though they 
affirm simply, contain in them a tacit condition, depending on 
the result." 

But if the sufferings of Christ did not avail to make an atone- 
ment, either by paying our debt to justice, or by his suffering 
the proper penalty of the law for us ; how did they avail ? In 
what does their atoning virtue or efficacy consist? 

Before directly answering these questions, let us recur to 
some of the principles laid down in my last Lecture, when 
speaking of the necessity of an atonement. We then said, " The 
law of God can be sustained by the infliction of the penalty on 
all' those who have transgressed it. Can it be sustained in any 
other way ? Is any substitute for this terrible infliction possible ? 
A full substitute would be a sufficient atonement ; but can any 
such substitute be found ? " 

It is our happiness to know that such a substitute has. been 
provided, in the voluntary sufferings and death of Christ. He 
endured, not the proper penalty of the law, but a complete gov- 
QYiLmzxitdl' substitute for the penalty. His sufferings and death 
in our room and stead as fully sustain the authority of law, as 
fully meet the demands of justice, as fully answer all the pur- 
poses of the divine government, as would the infliction of the 
penalty itself; and consequently are a complete substitute for 
the penalty ; or, in other words^ a complete atonement. 

It is commonly and justly understood, among evangelical 
Christians, that Christ's death was vicarious, or that he died as 
a substitute. But a substitute, how? And for what? Not that 
he endured the proper penalty of the law for us, but that he 
endured an adequate substitute for that penalty ; so that the 
penalty itself may now be safely and consistently, remitted. 
Were the penalty all borne, there would be nothing to be 
remitted. But as it has not been borne,, but only a substitute 
for it ;' as it has not been removed, but only a way opened in 
which it may be ; there is as much need of forgiveness, and as 
much to be forgiven, as though the Saviour had not died. 

The view here taken, as to the manner in which Christ's death 



THE ATONEMENT — ITS NATURE AND EFFICACY. 423 

avails to make an atonement for us, is believed to be the general 
prevailing sentiment of evangelical Christians on the subject. 
For though some excellent men have denied it in terms, insist- 
ing that Christ did bear the proper penalty of the law, yet, when 
they come to explain and answer objections, they insensibly fall 
into the other view, as that alone which will bear a thorough 
examination. Thus a writer in the late Dr. Green's Christian 
Advocate says that "the Redeemer did not endure eternal death," 
but " the infinite dignity of his person imparted to his temporary 
sufferings a value, that made them a fair and full equivalent for 
the everlasting sufferings of all who shall be finally saved." 1 
.Dr. Hopkins also, in his excellent chapter on the "Design and 
Work of the Redeemer," after having said more than once that 
Christ bore the penalty of the law for us, brings out his real 
meaning in language such as this : " He suffered the evil threat- 
ened, or as great evil, a complete equivalent, if not precisely the 
same evil in every circumstance, which the sinner must hav T e 
suffered had the threatening been executed on him. All the 
ends of the threatening and of the penalty are as fully answered 
by the sufferings of Christ, as they could be by the execution of 
it on the sinner" 2 The younger Edwards, too, says: "The 
atonement of Christ is a substitute for the punishment of the 
sinner, according to the divine law, and' is designed to support 
the authority of that law equally as the punishment of hell." 3 
So Dr. Wood.s, speaking of the penalty of the law, says : "Christ 
suffered it virtually. He suffered that which had, a like effect, or 
which had a like value in God's moral government. As to the 
ends of government, it was as though the curse of the law had 
been endured literally. So that it is sufficiently correct for 
common purposes to say, as Storr and Matt, and a thousand 
others have said, that Christ endured the penalty of the law; 
that he suffered the punishment due to sin." 4 

This shows us how Dr. Woods understood those writers who 
use the phraseology of Storr and Flatt. Indeed, he says that 
the view we have taken, — Christ suffering not the 'literal peu- 

i Vol. for 1826, pp. 388, 389. s Works, vol. ii. p. 38. 

. • 2 Works, vol. i. p. 340. 4 Works, vol. ii. p. 473. 



424 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

alty, but an equivalent, a substitute for it, — is the only reason- 
able view ; the only one which a sober man can take. 1 

We have now treated of the necessity of an atonement,. in 
order to the salvation of sinners ; also, of the nature and efficacy 
of that atonement which Christ made for us on the cross. Some 
collateral subjects still remain, which will be considered in the 
following Lecture. 

1 Some writers of the old school speak of Christ's having endured "a substituted 
penalty ; " which means a substitute for the proper penalty. 



THE ATONEMENT — COLLATERAL TOPICS. 425 



LECTUEE XXXVIII. 

THE ATONEMENT— COLLATERAL TOPICS. 

Having examined, in the two previous Lectures, the more es- 
sential features of the atonernent of Christ, such as its necessity; 
its nature, and its efficacy, we now pass to a consideration of 
some minor collateral questions. 

Our first inquiry will be as to the extent of the atonement. 
Is it universal, or particular •? Is it sufficient for all men, or 
only for the elect ? 

Without doubt, the atonement was intended to be applied, 
savingly, only to the elect. In other words, it was certain to 
the mind of God, from all eternity, that none but the elect 
would embrace it, and be saved by it. Still, we believe that, 
as to its sufficiency, the atonement is strictly universal. We 
might infer as much as this from the nature of the atonement. 
It is, in its nature, general, unlimited, we had almost said infi- 
nite. It can be limited by nothing but the good pleasure of him 
who made it, or by the extent of the race for whom it was made. 

Then the Scriptures decide, expressly, that the atonement 
was made for all men. Christ is said to have " died for all " (2 
Cor. v. 14). He "gave himself a ransom for all" (1 Tim. ii. 
6). He "tasted death for every man" (Heb. ii. 9). He is 
"the propitiation, not for our sins only, but also for the sins of 
the whole world" (1 John ii. 2). 

Again, the offers of the gospel, which are all based on the 
atonement, are strictly universal. " Ho ! every one that thirst- 
eth, come ye to the waters." "Look unto me and be ye saved, 
all the ends of the earth." " Come unto me, all ye that labor 
and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." " Whosoever 
will, let him come, and take the waters of life freely." It can- 

54 



426 " CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

not be supposed that God would offer salvation to those for 
whom no atonement has been made, and to whom salvation 
would be impossible, if the offer were accepted. Yet he cer- 
tainly does offer salvation to all men in the gospeL All, with- 
out exception, are invited to come, and partake the waters of 
life freely. 

It should be further considered, that all men are actually re- 
ceiving benefits, in this life, through the atonement. Our very 
existence in this world of light and hope, the blessings of Prov- 
idence we here enjoy, our probation of grace, our means of 
grace, indeed everything we receive which is better than the 
•perdition of ungodly men, — all is a matter of grace and mercy, 
and comes to us through the atonement and intercession of 
Christ. The fact that the non-elect here upon earth are contin- 
ually receiving blessings through the atonement, — all the bless- 
ings *that they have ever received, or ever will, — is proof that 
the atonement was made for them, and is sufficient, if they 
would only embrace it, for their salvation. 

We next inquire for evidence that divine justice is satisfied 
in the atonement of Christ, and that it has been accepted of the 
Father. We have proof of this fact, in the divine and perfect 
character of the Saviour. He would not have undertaken that 
which he had not the intention and the ability to accomplish. 
He would not have declared the atonement finished, when he 
bowed his head and gave up the ghost, if it were still unfinished 
and incomplete. 

Again, the Father openly manifested his acceptance of the 
atonement, by raising our Saviour from the dead. Accordingly, 
Christ is said to have been " delivered for our offences, and 
raised again for our justification." He is also declared to be 
the Son of God with power, by his resurrection from the dead. 

It may be further remarked, that every believer who has been 
pardoned and saved through the atonement, every justified soul 
now on earth or in heaven, is a living witness that the atonement 
has been accepted. Would God have justified any of our fallen 
race on this ground, and received them back to his favor and 
love, if justice was not satisfied, and the work of atonement was 
not complete ? 



THE ATONEMENT — COLLATERAL TOPICS. * 427 

There is yet another inquiry, in this connection, which will 
demand a more full consideration. How much must Christ 
have suffered, in order to satisfy divine justice, and make a full 
atonement for sin? How much? Though we may not be able 
to answer these questions with definiteness^os^Wy, we may 
negatively. Christ did not suffer the . same, either in kind or 
amount, which all mankind must have suffered in hell, had no 
atonement been made for them. That he should have suffered 
the same in hind is, in the nature of things, impossible, as we 
have before seen ; for, in order to this, he must have had the 
feelings of the lost, and been like them in character. And that 
he suffered the same in amount is also impossible, but upon the 
supposition that his divine nature suffered, and for the time 
infinitely. His whole divinity must have been permeated and 
filled with suffering. But to an idea like this — too monstrous, 
almost, to be made the subject of inquiry or thought — there are 
insuperable objections. 

The causes of our Saviour's sufferings, as set forth in the 
Scriptures, all go to limit them to his human nature. A part 
of them had a bodily origin. They grew out of his connection 
with the body. Such were his sufferings from weariness, faint- 
ness, hunger and thirst ; from the thorns, the scourge, the nails, 
and other inflictions, at the time of his crucifixion. But is it 
likely that, the Deity suffered in these ways? Was the immen- 
sity of the divine nature hungry and thirsty ? Was the Almighty 
God weary? Did the driving of a nail, or the pricking of a 
thorn, inflict a torture upon the Divinity himself, and thus carry 
a pang throughout the universe? Who believes as much as 
this ? Who that has any proper sense of the divine attributes 
and perfections can believe it ? • 

A part of our Saviour's sufferings arose from fear. As his 
last agonies approached, he seems to have been appalled in view 
of them, and to have feared that he should not be able to go 
through them in a proper manner. In the language of the 
Psalmist, "fearfulness and trembling came upon him, and hor- 
ror overwhelmed him" (Ps. lv. 5). "He offered up prayers 
and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that 
was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he 



428 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

feared" (Heb. v. 7). But how is it possible that the divine 
nature in Christ should have suffered from fear? Of what could 
it be afraid? Being omniscient, nothing unanticipated could 
present itself to the divinity within him to awaken fear, — noth- 
ing of which he had not had the most perfect knowledge from 
all eternity. And being almighty and independent, he must 
have known that nothing could ever injure him, and that he had 
absolutely nothing of which to be afraid. 

Our Saviour also suffered from distressing temptations. We 
read that "he suffered, being tempted;" and that he "was 
tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. ii. 
18 ; iv. 15). But is it possible that his divine nature suffered in 
this way ? Was God tempted ? We read that " God cannot be 
tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man" (James i. 13). 

But the severest sufferings of our blessed Lord were, undoubt- 
edly, of a spiritual nature. For a time, God was pleased to 
shut out his prayer, and to withhold from him those spiritual 
supports and consolations, those comforting tokens of the divine 
favor and love, which he had before enjoyed. "I cry in the 
daytime, but thou nearest not ; and in the night season, and 
am not silent. My God ! my God ! why hast thou forsaken 
me ? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words 
of my roaring?" (Ps. xxii. 1, 2). Now these distresses may be 
conceived of and accounted for, supposing them to have fallen 
upon the man Christ Jesus, while suffering in the stead of sin- 
ners. But what possible idea can we frame of them, if we say 
that they were the sufferings of God himself ? Did God the 
Son cry out, in his distress, to God the Father? Did he cry to 
him, and not be heard ? Did the first person of the Trinity hide 
his fa'ce from the second, withdraw from him all spiritual sup- 
port and consolation, and thus fill his infinite heart with distress 
and anguish ? Could one person of the Trinity be thus deserted 
and afflicted, and the whole Godhead not be afflicted? Could 
the divinity of the Son thus sorely suffer, and the divinity of 
the Father and the Spirit escape ? 

But this leads us to consider the question before us, in its 
bearing on some of the essential attributes of God, more espe- 
cially his immutability and his unchanging happiness. We do 



THE ATONEMENT — COLLATERAL TOPICS. 429 

not' believe the Divine Being immutable in such a sense as to 
divest him of all emotional feeling, and render him incapable of 
sympathizing with his suffering children. "Like as a father 
pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." 
Without doubt, the Father felt deeply for his suffering Son, 
while bleeding and dying on the cross. But the theory we are 
examining goes much further thau this. It supposes the Divine 
Being at a certain period, some thirty-three years after the birth 
of Christ, to have become, for the time, an infinite sufferer. He 
was tortured with fear. He was assaulted with manifold tempta- 
tions. He was overwhelmed with the most distressing thoughts, 
the most painful apprehensions. And not only so, he had put 
himself in such connection with a human body, as to suffer im- 
mensely from that source. In short, so filled was the infinity 
of the divine nature, at that period, with suffering, that it en- 
dured as much, in the course of a few hours, as all the elect of 
God would* have suffered in hell forever. Now, waiving all 
other objections to this monstrous theory, I would ask, how can 
it be reconciled with the idea of God's unchangeableness ; and 
especially with that of his unchangeable and perfect happiness? 
That God is unchangeably and perfectly happy is clearly taught 
in the Scriptures, and is the assured belief of all who bear the 
Christian name. But how is it possible to reconcile this glorious 
attribute with the supposed suffering of the divine nature at the 
time of the crucifixion? According to this theory, there was a* 
change in God at that time ; a mighty change ; a most painful 
and dreadful change. He did not merely sympathize with the 
sufferer on Calvary, but was himself the sufferer. The agonies 
of the garden, the tortures of crucifixion, he literally felt in his 
own divine nature. It would seem that his happiness, for the 
time, must have been, not marred, but destroyed. The immen- 
sity of his being must have been filled with anguish. 

But it is needless to argue this question farther. The Scrip- 
tures have decided it beyond a reasonable doubt. They teach, 
in a variety of ways, that the sufferings of Christ were those of 
a man. We are assured, in the first place, that Christ became 
a man that he might suffer. He "was made a little lower than 
the angels,"— in other w^ords, he was made man,— "for the 



430 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

suffering of death . . that he, by the grace of God, should 
taste death for every man" (Heb. ii. 9). " Forasmuch, then, 
as the children are made partakers of flesh and blood, he also 
himself took part of the same, that through death he might 
destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil " 
(Heb. ii. 14). 

The Scriptures affirm, positively, that Christ suffered as a 
man. He was "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" 
(Is. liii. 3). "Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled 
himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the 
cross" (Phil. ii. 8). 

The human character of Christ's sufferings is further indicated, 
in that he is so often said to have suffered in his body. " Who 
himself bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet. ii. 
24). " Sacrifice and offering thou woulclest not, but a body hast 
thou prepared me. . . . Then I said, Lo, I come ! in the 
volume of the book it is written of me, to do thy will, O God ! 
. By which will we are sanctified, through the offering 
of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. x. 5-10). 

Christ is also said to have suffered in the flesh, or, which is the 
same, in his human nature. "Being put to death in the flesh, 
but quickened by the Spirit" (1 Pet. iii. 18). "Forasmuch, 
then, as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves, 
likewise, with the same mind" (1 Pet. iv. 1). "You that were 
sometime alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, 
yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh, through 
death" (Col. i. 21). 

I have spent the more time on this question, not only on ac- 
count of its intrinsic importance, but because the theory of a 
suffering God, who endured as much for his elect as they must 
have endured in hell forever, has within a few years been pub- 
licly and strenously urged upon us. 1 I have endeavored to 
show, in as few words as possible, that such a doctrine cannot 
be true It conflicts with all our ideas of the attributes and per- 
fections of, God. It contradicts the plain teachings of the Bible. 
Our Saviour suffered as a man; yet not as a mere man, but as 

1 See, in particular, a work entitled " Sufferings of Christ" by a Layman, published in 
1845. 



THE ATONEMENT — COLLATEEAL TOPICS. 431 

one in whom " dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." 
They were the sufferings of a man in personal union with the 
Deity, and who was sustained by that union to endure what 
otherwise would have crushed him in a moment. It is a mistake 
to suppose that our beloved Lord, in his last agonies, endured 
no more than a mere man would have done, in the same time. 
From the very nature of the case, he must have suffered incon- 
ceivably more. And then it is perfectly evident, from his ap- 
pearance in the garden, from the shrinking of his human nature 
in view of the scenes before him, that his sufferings must have 
been, to the last degree, dreadful. 

It is sometimes said that our Lord did not meet his death with 
as much firmness as some of the martyrs have shown under the 
like circumstances. But there is no comparison between the 
two cases. Our Saviour did not. die as a mere martyr. The 
chief causes of his sufferings, their attendant circumstances, the 
amazing issues depending, the great ends to be answered, — all 
were different, and all in his case peculiar. I can conceive that 
our Saviour suffered more in a few hours than any martyr could 
have suffered in as many years. He suffered more, I have no 
doubt, than mere unassisted human nature could have sustained 
for 4 a moment. He suffered enough, considering the infinite 
dignity and glory of his person, and his ineffable nearness to 
the Father, — enough to satisfy the justice of God, and answer 
all those purposes, in the divine government, which could have 
been answered by the destruction of our race. They were 
enough to declare, most adequately and fully, God's "righteous- 
ness for the remission of sins that are past, . . . that he 
might be just and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." 
In other words, he suffered enough to make a full and complete 
atonement for sin, with which the Father is satisfied, and which 
he has publicly accepted. 

The more common objections to the doctrine of the atonement 
have been anticipated, and need not detain us long. It is some- 
times said that an atonement for sin was not necessary; that 
God could consistently pardon the penitent, returning soul, with- 
out a bloody expiation. But this objection has been considered, 



432 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

and the necessity of an atonement fully set forth, in a previous 
Lecture. * • 

It has been said, again, that the infliction of so much suffering, 
and a violent death upon the holy Son of God, was unjust. This 
objection would be valid, had the sufferings of Christ been visited 
upon him against his will, or without his consent. But neither 
of these suppositions is true. Our blessed Lord was throughout 
a voluntary sufferer. Of his own accord, he took upon himself 
our nature, appeared in our world, and suffered and died for us 
on the cross. It was in reference to this painful sacrifice, that 
we hear him saying, "Lo, I come ! in the volume of the book it 
is written of me ; I delight to do thy will, O my God ! " K No 
man taketh my life from me,. but I lay it down of myself ." 
"The Son of man is come, not to be ministered unto, but to 
minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" 

It is insisted, after all, that the atonement is an unreasonable 
doctrine. There was no adequate call for such a sacrifice ; no 
exigency sufficiently great and appalling to demand it. Those 
who urge this objection seem not to understand at all the pecu- 
liar exigency of the case. With their views of human nature 
and character, how should they understand it? But let them, 
for once, look into the Bible, and learn what that says as to the 
natural state and character of man ; a world full of sinners, — 
a world in ruins, — all the countless myriads that have lived in 
past ages, are living now, or shall live to the end of time ; — all 
under sentence of eternal death, and hanging together over the 
pit of destruction ; let them look at the subject in this light 
(and this is the light in which the Bible presents it), and see if 
there is not an exigency sufficiently great and appalling, to call 
for the interposition of the Son of God. The death of Christ, 
we know, was a wonderful event, -^the most wonderful that 
ever transpired beneath the sun, — so wonderful as to transcend 
all human conception, and at times almost to stagger our faith. 
But when we consider the vastness of the objects to be attained 
by his death, and which could be attained in no other way, — a 
foundation of hope laid, and a door of mercy opened for a 
ruined world, — myriads upon myriads of immortal beings res- 



THE ATONEMENT — COLLATEEAL TOPICS. 433 

cued from the jaws of eternal death, and raised to eternal glory 
and bliss in heaven, — while the character of God is at the same 
time illustrated, and his glongr displayed in the highest degree ; 
when we look at the subject in this light, and ponder it, and 
dwell upon it, we no longer wonder at the death of Christ. 
We see that there was a cause, a sufficient cause ; and are satis- 
fied that this most glorious display of divine love and mercy 
was as reasonable as it was necessary and just. 

As to the importance of the doctrine which has been discussed 
in this and the two previous Lectures, it is difficult to speak in 
terms of sufficient strength. It is of vast interest and impor- 
tance in itself. It is important in all its relations and conse- 
quences. It is the grand central doctrine of the whole Christian 
system, without which the rest would lose its significance, and 
the system could not be held together. It is the groundwork 
of that probation of grace on which the human family are now 
placed ; and all the mercies which come to us while here on 
trial, — the blessings of Providence which we here enjoy, the 
means of grace, the strivings and influences of the Holy Spirit, 
— everything indeed which makes existence desirable, may be 
traced back consequentially to the atonement of Christ. It 
stretches its influence beyond the grave, and is the foundation 
of all the hopes which are centred there. It is the corner-stone 
of Zion, on which the whole church of God rests, and will rest 
forever. 

The atonement is a subject which interests, not our world 
only, but the entire moral universe, and will do so eternally. 
Angels are looking into it with admiring attention, and the 
whole upper world are engaged together, in. celebrating its 
wonders and glories. The countless myriads of the blessed in 
heaven know vastly more of the Supreme Being, they love him 
better, they enjoy him more, they will be unspeakably more 
happy to all eternity than they could have been had not a 
Saviour died. 



55 



434 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



CHAPTER XXXIX. 

THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. 

Intimately connected with the atonement of Christ is his 
intercession. The former work was accomplished on earth ; the 
latter is now in progress in heaven. The Saviour died upon 
the cross ; he rose triumphant from the dead ; he has gone into 
the heavens; and there "he ever liveth to make intercession 
for us" (Heb. vii. 25). 

This work of intercession, like that of the atonement, belongs 
to the priestly office of Christ, and was clearly typified under 
the former dispensation, by a part of the service of the high- 
priest. The priest in Israel went daily into the holy place, ac- 
complishing the service of God ; but into the most holy place, 
within the veil, none went but the high-priest, and he only once 
in a year. He here sprinkled the mercy-seat with the blood 
of atonement, and burned incense before the Lord (Lev. xvi.). 
" But Christ," says the apostle, "being a high-priest of good 
things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not 
made with hands, that is to say, not of this building, neither 
by the blood of goats and calves, but his own blood, he entered 
in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemp- 
tion for us." And again : " Christ is not entered into the holy 
places made with hands, which are figures of the true, but into 
heaven itself, there to appear in the presence of God for us " 
(Heb. ix. 24). 

It is certain from these passages, that that part of the service 
of the high-priest to which we have referred, — the most solemn 
and awful of all his services, — was typical of the intercession 
of Christ in heaven. In prosecuting the subject before us, I 
propose, — 



THE INTEECESSION OF CHEIST. 435 

I. To point out some of the ways in which Christ intercedes. 
II. Show for whom he intercedes. And, 

III. Speak of the benefits of his intercession. 

I.. How, or in what ways, does Christ carry on his work of 
intercession in heaven? For an answer to this question, we are 
dependent entirely on revelation. Reason can add nothing but 
conjecture, and hardly that, to what the Scriptures have taught 
us on the subject. I remark,- — 

1. Christ intercedes in heaven, by appearing there with the 
blood of atonement, which has been shed for men. As the high- 
priest in Israel went into the most holy place with the blood of 
atonement, so our great High-Priest has gone into the heavens, 
with his more precious blood, there to appear in the presence 
of God for us. He appears there as a Lamb that has been slain. 
He appears there with his scars and wounds, and sprinkles the 
mercy-seat above with his own blood. Nor is this blood a 
silent, inoperative thing. It has a tongue, and it speaks. It 
" speaketh better things than the blood of Abel" (Heb. xii. 24). 
Abel's blood cried from the ground for vengeance upon the head 
of the murderer. But the blood of Christ pleads for mercy to 
the guilty. 

It once happened, in the history of Rome, that a young sol- 
dier had committed some offence, for which he was condemned 
to die. By the laws of war his life was forfeited, and there was 
no hope for him. But he had a brother in the army who had 
lost both hands in a recent battle ; and he undertook to plead 
for the offender's life. And how did he plead ? Not by assert- 
ing his brother's innocence, or complaining of the laws and 
usages of war by which he had been condemned. Not, in fact, 
by speaking a word, or opening his lips on his behalf. But he 
urged his way into the presence of the commanding officer, 
and held up the stumps of his arms before him. And this was 
enough. These bleeding, handless, useless stumps — rendered 
useless in his country's service — had a tongue, a # voice. They 
pleaded louder and more effectively than words could plead. 
The offending brother was forgiven, and restored to favor. 

And thus it is that our Saviour intercedes for us in heaven. 
He appears there with his scarred hands and feet, and his 



436 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

wounded side, and sprinkles the mercy-seat above with his own 
precious blood. 

" If justice calls for sinners' blood, • 
The Saviour shows his own." 

2. Christ intercedes in heaven, by offering up literal prayers, 
or supplicating blessings for his people. So the matter was 
understood by the early Christian fathers, and by the older 
Protestant commentators. A different view has been taken by 
some recent interpreters, but the testimony of Scripture is 
against them. 

In the first place, I know of no objection to Christ's offering 
up literal prayers in heaven, more than to his engaging in such 
a service while here in the World. He was God on earth, as he 
is now in heaven. He was Mediator and King in Zion while 
with us in the flesh, as he is now in glory. And though, as a 
man, he has not the same personal necessities that he once had, 
his people, who are the special objects of his intercession, are 
as needy as ever, and require his prayers as much as when he 
tabernacled with them. 

In this view, the supposition that Christ literally intercedes in 
heaven is a very reasonable one. He is now near the Father, 
in his immediate presence, at his right hand, and has continued 
and delightful intercourse with him. No intercourse can be 
conceived of as more intimate and happy than that subsisting 
between the Father and the Son in heaven. And here are his 
needy and often afflicted people. They are warring with temp- 
tation, contending against sin, and toiling on, through scenes 
of danger, suffering, and conflict, towards their eternal home. 
Christ loves his people with an unchanging love. He thinks of 
them ; he feels and cares for them ; and what more reasonable 
supposition than that, in his intercourse with the Father, he 
should bring their necessities before him, and make requests on 
their behalf? 

And this is ^obviously the scriptural view of the case. As 
remarked already, the intercession of Christ in heaven was 
typified by the solemn service of the high-priest in Israel, on the 
great day of atonement. And in this typical service, the fact 
of our Saviour's offering up prayers in heaven was clearly indi- 



THE INTEECESSJON OF CHKIST. 437 

cated. The high-priest went into the most holy place, not only 
with the blood of atonement, but with incense. He was directed 
to " take a censer full of burning coals from the alter before the 
Lord, and his hands full of swee't incense, and bring it within 
the veil, and to put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, 
that the smoke of the incense might cover the mercy-seat" 
(Lev. xvi. 12). Whether the priest literally prayed, in the 
performance of this service, we are not informed ; but the incense 
which he offered was the known symbol of prayer. " Let my 
prayer be set forth before thee as incense, and the lifting up of 
my hands as the evening sacrifice" (Ps. cxxi. 2). The four and 
twenty elders "fell down before the Lamb, haviDg every one of 
them harps, and golden vials full of odors (or incense), which 
are the prayers of saints " (Rev. v. 8). Thus the incense which 
the high-priest offered in the most holy place was a symbolic 
representation of prayer; and, in accordance with this typical 
service on earth, we are to suppose that our great High-Priest 
offers up the incense of his intercession in heaven. In other 
words, we are to suppose that he literally prays in heaven ; 
else there is nothing in his intercessory work to answer to the 
incense of the Jewish priest, and it is unaccountable that the 
offering of incense should have been appointed. 

That our Saviour prays for his peojble in heaven is evident 
from several passages in the New Testament. " Who shall lay 
anything to the charge of God's elect ? It is God that justifieth ; 
who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather 
that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who 
also mdketh intercession for us" (Rom. viii. 33). "Wherefore 
he is able to save them to the uttermost, who come unto God by 
him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them " (Heb. 
vii. 25). The original word is the same in both these passages, 
and is properly rendered to make intercession. Paul uses the 
same word when he says : " Wot ye not what the Scripture saith 
of Elias, how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, say- 
ing, Lord, 'they have killed thy prophets," etc. (Rom. xi. 2). A 
substantive from the same verb is used in Timothy : " I exhort 
therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, 
and giving of thanks be made for all men" (1 Tim. ii. 1). In 



438 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

both these cases, the word is used in reference to prayer. In 
short, this is the common use of the word in the sacred writings, 
and it is faithfully rendered by our translators, to make interces- 
sion. 

There is another term, by which the intercession of Christ is 
set forth, which carries with it the same idea. " If any man sin, 
we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the right- 
eous " (1 John ii. 1). The word here rendered advocate prop- 
erly signifies an intercessor, — *one who pleads for another, as a 
lawyer for his client. So Our Saviour pleads for his people in 
heaven ; more especially for their recovery and forgiveness when 
they fall into sin. 

I may add, that our Saviour promised his disciples, just before 
he left them, that he would pray for them; which must mean, 
apparently, that he would pray for them in heaven. " I will 
pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that 
he may abide with you forever" (John xiv. 16). We have no 
evidence that Christ fulfilled this promise previous to his ascen- 
sion, but have much reason to believe that he fulfilled it after- 
wards ; since it was several days after the ascension of Christ 
that the prayer was answered, and the Holy Spirit came. 

On the whole, I must believe that Christ intercedes in heaven 
by offering up literal prayers or making requests for his people ; 
and that this may be regarded as the second mode of # his inter- 
cession. 

3. A third mode of Christ's intercession consists in his pre- 
senting before the throne of his Father the accepted and purified 
prayers of his people. This mode, like both the preceding, was 
typified in the services of the ancient temple. While the priest 
went in with his censer, to appear before God, "the multitude 
of the people were praying without, at the time of incense " 
(Luke i. 10). Consequently, their prayers went up in connec- 
tion with the incense of. the priest. So the prayers of Christians 
in this lower world ascend up to heaven perfumed with the 
incense of a Saviour's intercessions. 

All this is clearly represented in one of the visions of the 
Apostle John : " Another angel came and stood at the altar, 
having a golden censer, and. there was given unto him much 



THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. 439 

incense, that he should offer it, with the prayers of all saints, 
upon the golden altar that was before the throne. And the 
smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of saints, as- 
cended up before God out of the angel's hand" (Bev. viii. 3). 
This angel, we must suppose, was either Christ himself, or his 
representative. The incense which he offered denoted the inter- 
cession of Christ ; and this ascended up before God with the 
prayers of saints, We may conclude, then, that it is one part 
of the intercessory work of Christ to present before God the 
prayers of his people. The sins and imperfections which mingle 
with their prayers being washed away in his atoning blood, he 
presents their purified and now acceptable worship before the 
throne of his Father in heaven. 

This mode of Christ's intercession, like almost everything else 
pertaining to the soul's salvation, is beautifully set forth inBun- 
yan's inimitable allegory of the Holy War. In their distress, at 
a certain time, the Mansouliaris agreed to send a petition to the 
court of Shaddai, the great King, praying for more help. When 
their petition had been prepared and brought to the King's pal- 
ace, it was delivered into the hands of his son. " So he took it, 
and read it ; and because the contents of it pleased him well, he 
Inended it, and also in some things added to the petition himself 
So, after he had made such amendments and additions as he 
thought convenient, with his own hand, he carried it to the 
King ; to whom, when he had with obeisance delivered it, he 
put on authority, and spoke to it himself." Thus the Saviour 
takes our poor prayers, perfects them with his own hand, per- 
fumes them with the incense of his intercession, and then they 
are accepted with the Father. 

The Apostle Paul has reference to this mode of our Saviour's 
intercession, when he says that we can have access to God in 
prayer only through Christ. "Through whom we have access, 
by one Spirit, unto the Father " (Eph. ii. 18). The same f is also 
intimated by Christ himself, when he directs his followers to 
offer their prayers in his name. K Whatsoever ye shall ask the 
Father in my name, he will do it." Praying in Christ's name 
implies that we depend, not only on his atonement for pardon, 



440 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

but on his intercession for the presentment and acceptance of 
our worship. 

4. Still another mode of Christ's intercession for his people in 
heaven (if it be another) consists in his refuting and removing 
all the charges and allegations which are there brought against 
them. This mode of intercession is set forth, perhaps, in the 
third chapter of the prophecy of Zechariah. The prophet, in his 
vision, sees Joshua, the high-priest, who had returned with the 
exiles from Babylon, standing before the angel of the Lord (who 
represents Christ) , and Satan standing at his right hand to ac- 
cuse him. Satan does accuse him of being clad with filthy gar- 
ments ; or, in other words, of being polluted with the errors and 
sins of Babylon. The Lord, or (as the Syriac renders it) the 
angel of the Lord, who is Christ, replies to this accusation, and 
pleads with his Father to rebuke the adversary. " The Lord re- 
buke thee, O Satan, even the Lord, that hath chosen Jerusalem, 
rebuke thee. Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire ? " As 
though he had said, " Thou knowest, O Father, the sore trial 
through which thy servant Joshua has passed ; that he has been 
drawn, as it were, from the dust and ashes of the fire. How 
then should it be expected that his garments should not be de- 
filed ? Dwelling so long far away from the ordinances of thine* 
house, among the abominations of an idolatrous city, how could 
it be expected that he should not be ignorant, in some measure, 
of the orders of thine house, and be infected with the influence 
of a corrupting example? Still, he is thy penitent servant ; and 
I pray thee to forgive his sins, remove his filthy garments, and 
rebuke this merciless adversary." Thus our compassionate 
Redeemer is represented as interceding, in this instance ; and 
how happy the result ! The adversary is rebuked ; the filthy 
garments of Joshua are taken away ; his iniquities are purged ; 
he stands accepted before God, and receives a promise of the 
richest blessings. 

The Apostle Paul gives the same view of the intercession of 
Christ in a passage already quoted, where he represents it as a 
principal reason why no charges can be substantiated against 
God's elect, that Christ has risen from the dead and ever liveth 
to make intercession for them in heaven (Rom. viii. 33, 34). 



THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. 441 

The same idea is conveyed also by John, when he speaks of 
Christ as our Advocate with the Father. " If any man sin," and 
by sinning furnishes ground of charge or accusation, " we have 
an Advocate with the Father " (1 John ii. 1). As it belongs to 
the advocate to defend his client, and answer to the charges 
brought against him ; so Christ intercedes for his people in 
heaven, takes care of their interests, manages their cause before 
God, and answers to the accusations which are preferred against 
them . 

I have now exhibited several distinct modes in which Christ 
may be said to intercede in heaven. It was proposed to in- 
quire, — 

II. For whom he intercedes. This question has been an- 
swered, in part, already. There can be no doubt that Christ 
intercedes for his people, — his toiling, suffering, afflicted people 
on the earth. All that is said of his intercession in the Scrip- 
tures gives us this view of it. All the examples of his interces- 
sion do the same. We may be sure, therefore, that Christ's 
covenant people — those who have believed in him, and com- 
mitted themselves to his hands — are the peculiar objects of his 
intercession before the throne of God. 

But are these the on ly objects ? Does not his advocacy, at 
least in some of its forms, reach farther than this? We have 
reason to believe that Christ intercedes, not only for his present 
people, but for all who shall ever become his people; in other 
words, for all his elect. In that memorable prayer, recorded in 
the seventeenth chapter of John, — which may be taken as a 
pattern of his intercessions above, — we hear him pleading for 
all those who, in time to come, should believe on his name. 
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall 
believe on me through their word, that they all may be one, as 
thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee." 

Nor would we limit the intercession of Christ altogether to his 
elect. In the first mode of it of which we spoke, — the presen- 
tation of his atoning blood before the mercy-seat in heaven, — 
the intercession of Christ must be coextensive with his atone- 
ment. In other words, it must be, in a sense, for all men. All 
who have any interest in the atonement of Christ must have an 

56 



442 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

equal interest in this first mode of his intercession. The fact, 
too, that sinners, incorrigible sinners, those who never embrace 
the truth, are receiving blessings continually, in this life, through 
the atonement and intercession of Christ, — the blessings of 
providence, the day and the means of grace, the strivings and 
influences of the Holy Spirit, — is proof positive that the inter- 
cession of Christ, at least in the form of it first contemplated, 
reaches to them. In this sense, it must extend to the whole 
human race, — all those for whom Christ died. 

III. We now proceed to our third and last inquiry, which has 
respect to the benefits resulting to Christians, and to the world, 
from the intercession of Christ. 

On this point, the Scriptures have positively decided in 
respect to some things. Thus we know that the Holy Spirit, in 
his more special and copious eflfusions, is sent in consequence of 
our Saviour's intercessions. "I will pray the Father, and he 
shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you 
forever" (John xiv. 16). And who shall estimate the blessings 
which have come upon the world in consequence of the out- 
pourings of the Holy Spirit? Until we can compute all the 
blessings of salvation, — the worth of all the souls that have 
ever been saved, or ever will be, the benefits of Christ's inter- 
cession, only in this view of it, can never be estimated. 

We know, too, that the gift of miracles, in the primitive 
church, was conferred in the same way. " The works that I do 
shall ye do also, and greater works than these shall ye do, be- 
cause I go to my Father" — because I go to intercede for you 
in heaven (John xiv. 12). 

The forgiveness of sins, and the final salvation of the soul, are 
also conferred through Christ's intercession. " He is able to 
save to the uttermost all who come unto God by him, seeing he 
ever liveth to make intercession for them" (Heb. vii. 25). 

Again : the varied blessings which we receive, in answer to 
our own prayers, and the prayers of others, may all be traced 
to the intercession of Christ ; since it is only through his inter- 
cession that our prayers can reach the throne of heaven, and be 
accepted. 

Indeed, all the blessings which are enjoyed on the earth may 



THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. 443 

be regarded as coming to us in consequence of the Saviour's in- 
tercession. All flow to us, obviously, through the atonement; 
and what is it that gives such efficacy to atoning blood ? Is it 
not that Christ has gone with it into the heavens, to sprinkle 
with it the mercy-seat above, — to present and plead it before 
the throne of his Father? The intercession of Christ is the 
carrying out, the consummation, so to speak, of his atonement; 
and hence all the blessings resulting to us from his atonement 
should also be considered as standing connected with his inter- 
cession. And who shall estimate the number or the value of 
these? Our very probation of grace, and all the blessings per- 
taining to our present probation ; our food, our raiment, our 
friends, our homes, the very air we breathe, and all the bless- 
ings of providence we enjoy ; our Bibles, our Sabbaths, our 
sanctuary privileges ; the offers, the hopes, the consolations of 
the gospel; everything, in fact, which we receive, which is 
better than that perdition which we deserve, — all comes to us 
through the interposition, the atonement, the prevalent interces- 
sion of our glorified Eedeemer. 

How important, then, to the world is the intercession of 
Christ ! How stupendous and incalculable are the blessings 
resulting from it; including, even to those who finally perish, 
all their earthly favors and comforts, and, to those who are 
saved, the inconceivable, unutterable blessings of an endless 
life ! 

This subject is one of great interest and encouragement, every 
way, to the people of God. It is fitted to encourage them in 
the duty of prayer. They are not obliged to stand unaided 
and alone before the throne of a just and holy God ; but an all- 
powerful Mediator has been provided. They have an advocate 
with the Father. Their great Intercessor stands ready to 
receive their petitions, to purify and present their prayers, and 
make them acceptable in the sight of Heaven. They may, there- 
fore, "come boldly to the throne of grace, that they may obtain 
mercy, and find grace to help in every time of need." 

Let them, also, be encouraged under temptations and trials, 
and in seasons of doubt, despondency, and darkness. "Who 
shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect ? ... It is 



444 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Christ that died; yea, rather that is risen again; who also 
mdketh intercession for us." The people of God are indeed be- 
set with fierce accusers, — an accusing conscience, an accusing 
law, and an accusing devil, who "goeth about as a roaring lion, 
seeking whom he may devour." But let them not be dismayed. 
Their Redeemer is strong ; he is at the right hand of God ; he 
ever liveth to make intercession for them. And this is one part 
of his intercession : to answer all the charges which are brought 
against them ; to refute and silence the accusations of their 
enemies. The children of God, then, have no reason to be 
dismayed. They shall never be deserted. Their Redeemer is 
able to save, to the uttermost, all who come unto God by him. 

By all the considerations which the subject suggests, the fol- 
lowers of Christ should be encouraged and engaged to untiring 
fidelity in the service of their Lord and Master. As he is ever 
mindful of them, let them never forget and forsake him. As he 
has gone to appear in the presence of God for them, so let them 
be ready, under all circumstances and at all times, to appear 
openly for him, before an unbelieving and an ungodly world. 
And as he ever liveth to make intercession for them, so they 
should ever live in obedience to his will, and in a faithful devo- 
tion to his cause and service. "A thousand obligations bind 
their hearts to grateful love." Let them ever be mindful of 
these obligations ; let them live and act under their influence ; * 
and thus may they be growing in all goodness and usefulness, 
and be training up in a preparation to meet their Saviour in the 
heavens. 



THE COVENANT OF GEACE. 445 



LECTURE XL. 

THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

Having considered already the atonement and intercession of 
Christ, — the grand foundation of the sinner's hope, — the next 
subject in order is the covenant of grace. This is the covenant 
which, on the ground of the atonement, God is graciously hold- 
ing out to a ruined world. It contains the promises of pardon 
and eternal life, through Christ, and the conditions on which 
sinners may become interested in these promises, to the salva- 
tion of their souls. 

The word covenant is used with considerable variety of signi- 
fication in the Scriptures. It sometimes signifies a simple 
promise. Thus the covenant with Noah was an absolute promise 
to him and his descendants, that the earth should no more be 
destroyed by a flood (Gen. ix. 9-17). The same Avord is some- 
times used to signify law. It is in this sense that the ten com- 
mandments are called God's covenant (Deut. iv. 13) . And when 
we read — not in the Scriptures, but in books of theology — 
of the covenant with Adam and the covenant of works, the 
term is used in much the same sense. A covenant of works is 
but another name for law. The purport of both is, " obey and 
live ; transgress and die." 

A covenant, properly speaking, is an agreement, a compact, 
between two or more persons or parties, containing conditions 
to be complied with, and promises to be fulfilled upon compli- 
ance. " If you will do so and so, I will do so and so." In this 
sense the term is used in the Scriptures. In this sense it is 
used when we speak of the covenant of grace. 

Before treating directly of the covenant of grace, it will be 
necessary to distinguish it from another covenant, with which it 



446 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

has sometimes been confounded, — I mean the covenant of re- 
demotion. By the covenant of redemption we understand the 
general plan of redemption, formed in eternity, and comprising 
the several parts to be performed in this dmd^xrjv, arrangement 
or plan, by Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. According to this 
plan, the Father is first in office, — the grand executive head in 
the divine government, whose official work it is to administer the 
laws and sustain the honors of the eternal throne. That these 
honors may be sustained, and yet sinners be saved, the Father 
proposes to the Son to act as Mediator between himself and 
them ; to take upon himself human nature ; to die in the place 
of sinners ; to become their teacher, their example, their advo- 
cate, their atoniug priest and intercessor. He promises him a 
vast number of our lost race, as the blessed fruits of his media- 
tion ; and that he may secure the salvation of this number, the 
Father proposes, for a time, to place his Son on a mediatorial 
throne, and to commit all power in heaven and on earth to his 
hands. 

To these proposals of the Father the eternal Son consents. 
"Then he said, Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is 
written of me, I come to do thy will, O God ! " (Heb. x. 7.) 
" I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will 
of him that sent me" (John vi. 38). The Son voluntarily en- 
gages to do and to suffer all that is necessary for the salvation 
of sinners, and to receive a seed to serve him, as his reward. 

But to complete this great work of redemption, another agency 
is requisite ; and the Father and Son propose that the divine 
/Spirit shall bear a part with them. The Spirit must descend, 
by his special operations, to enlighten the dark minds of men, 
to awaken their consciences, to subdue their wills, to melt and 
break their hard hearts. He must come and apply the motives 
of the gospel, and make them effectual. He must exert all that 
spiritual influence which is necessary, in order to bring in the 
whole number of God's elect, and prepare them for glory. To 
this the divine Spirit consents ; and thus the whole plan of 
redemption is settled, and the eternal covenant of redemption 
is formed. 

As this plan or covenant of redemption was formed in eter- 



THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 447 

nity, the order implied in the above statement is the supposed 
order of nature, and not of time. I have endeavored that the 
whole statement should be conformed to the current and popu- 
lar representations of Scripture, in regard to this mysterious 
subject. 

This great scheme of redemption is not fully exhibited in any 
one passage of the sacred writings. Of course, it could not be. 
But it is referred to and implied in a variety of passages. It is 
implied in all those Scriptures in which the persons of the 
Trinity are represented as performing distinct parts in the work 
of redemption; since whatever they perform in time, it was 
doubtless their plan or covenant to perform in eternity. There 
is a reference to the covenant of redemption in those numerous 
passages, in which the Son is represented as acting in subordi- 
nation to the Father, — coming in his name, speaking and work- 
ing by his authority, — and receiving from him power; also in 
those passages in which the Father is said to have sent the Son, 
established him, committed to him a kingdom, and given him 
a certain portion of the human race. Passages of this last 
description are of frequent occurrence in the teachings of the 
Saviour. How often do we hear him speaking of those whom 
his Father had given him ! 

The covenant of redemption is also referred to in those Scrip- 
tures in which the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and 
the Son, and to operate officially in subordination to them. It 
would be needless to quote particular passages. Those who 
would find evidence of the eternal covenant of redemption in 
the Scriptures may consult the second, the eighty-ninth, and 
the hundred and tenth Psalms ; the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah ; 
Christ's closing address to his disciples, and his prayer with 
them, recorded in the latter part of John's Gospel ; and many 
of the quotations from the Old Testament, in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. 

Such, then, is the eternal covenant of redemption. The cove- 
nant of grace, like everything else pertaining to the salvation of 
sinners, is founded on this covenant of redemption, grows out 
of it, and in some respects may be considered as included in 
it. In other respects, however, it is very different from it, and 



448 . CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

requires to be carefully distinguished. The principal points of 
distinction are the two following: 1. The covenant of redemp- 
tion subsists between the three persons of the Trinity ; the 
covenant of grace between God and repenting sinners. 2. The 
covenant of redemption was entered into from all eternity ; the 
covenant of grace is proposed and is accepted or rejected in 
time. 

The covenant of grace is founded on the atonement of Christ, 
and contains the terms or conditions on which, through Christ, 
God will pardon and save sinners. It is summarily expressed 
in the following manner, and nearly in the language of the in- 
spired writings : " Repent, and ye shall be forgiven. Believe on 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. Return to me, 
and I will return to you. If thou seek him, he will be found of 
thee ; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever." 
This, it will be perceived, is the language of covenant. Here 
are conditions proposed, and promises annexed, as in every 
proper covenant there must be. 

In regard to these conditions, however, two things require to 
be said : 

1. It is not left optional with us whether we shall be under 
obligations to comply with them. In covenants of human 
origin, this is often the case. Those to whom the covenant or 
agreement is proposed are under no anterior obligations to com- 
ply with its conditions. Whether they comply or not, they 
violate no existing obligation, and commit no sin. But not so 
in the covenant before us. God has not suspended our duty in 
the case upon our own decision. We are bound to repent, 
whether we repent or not ; and we should be bound to exercise 
repentance, even if God had not made it one of the conditions 
of his covenant, and if nothing were to be gained by our re- 
penting. And so of the other conditions of the covenant of 
grace. Irrespective of their connection with the covenant, it is 
our duty to comply with them. They are made the subjects of 
command, as well as of condition. " God now commandeth all 
men everywhere to repent." He commands impenitent men to 
submit to his authority, to return to their duty, and bring forth 
fruits meet for repentance. It is a high recommendation of the 



THE COVENANT OF OK ACE. 449 

covenant of grace, that God requires in it, as the condition of 
pardon, no painful penance, no costly sacrifice, no more than we 
should be under indispensable obligations to render, even if no 
forgiveness was promised, and nothing was to be gained by a 
compliance. 

2. My second remark in respect to the conditions of the 
covenant of grace is, that by complying with them, we merit 
nothing. We merely return to him from whom we ought never 
to have wandered. We are still unprofitable servants, doing 
only what it is our duty to do. So far from meriting anything, 
in complying with the conditions of the covenant of grace, our 
very act of compliance is itself a renunciation of all merit. It 
is a ceasing from all reliance on this , or any other act of our 
own, — all that we have ever done, or can do, as a ground of 
hope, — and putting our trust in Christ alone for pardon and 
salvation. 

The covenant of grace began to be promulgated in the first 
gospel promise that was given to the world. It was published 
all along under the former dispensation, by every altar that 
smoked, by every prophet that preached, by every inspired poet 
that sung. It was proclaimed and urged, in a thousand forms, 
by our blessed Saviour and his apostles. It was published by 
all those holy men, who spake and wrote as they were moved 
by the Holy Ghost. It has been published, with more or less of 
distinctness, through all the intervening ages. It is sounded 
forth, at the present day, wherever the Bible is read or the gos- 
pel is preached. The great business of the gospel minister now 
is, to propose, explain, and urge the conditions of salvation ; or, 
in other words, to publish the covenant of grace. The moment 
the sinner enters heartily into this covenant, and begins to com- 
ply with its conditions, — and this he does in the first moment 
of regeneration, — he becomes entitled to its proffered blessings. 
His sins are forgiven, and his salvation is sure. 

The covenant of which we here speak is appropriately called 
the covenant of grace , because everything pertaining to it, from 
beginning to end, is ivholly of grace. Its foundation, in the 
eternal covenant of redemption, and in the atonement of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, its conditions, its promises, its methods of 
57 



450 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

administration, its everlasting rewards, — in short, all that 
pertains to it, from the foundation to the top-stone, is entirely 
of grace. Most fitly, therefore, is it denominated the covenant 
of grace. 

It has sometimes been inquired, whether the covenants of 
the visible church in all ages — the covenant with Abraham, the 
covenant at Sinai, and the covenants of our churches under the 
gospel, — are not the covenant of grace. To this we answer : 
The covenant of God's visible church on earth is not properly 
the covenant of grace, and yet it includes the covenant of grace. 
No constitution or covenant, which does not include the cove- 
nant of grace, can be regarded as a church covenant, or can 
constitute the body adopting it and entering into it a proper 
visible church. And this, by the way, is a sure criterion by 
which to determine whether a body, calling itself a church, is, 
in reality, a church of Christ. Does its covenant include the 
covenant of grace ? Do those who enter into it profess to have 
acceded to the covenant of grace, or, in other words, to be 
truly pious persons? If so, it should be regarded as a church 
of Christ. If otherwise, not. 

It is in this way we decide that the congregation of Israel was 
a church of the living God. Their covenant — the covenant 
with Abraham, which was renewed with great solemnity at Sinai 
— was a gracious covenant. It included, obviously, the cove- 
nant of grace. " Thou hast avouched the Lord, this day, to be 
thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and 
his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken to his 
voice. And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his pe- 
culiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest 
keep all his commandments, and that thou may est be a holy 
people unto the Lord thy God" (Deut. xxvi. 17). 

No person could be a true member of the church of Israel, 
and not be a pious person, more than he can be a true member 
of one of our evangelical churches without piety. Every mem- 
ber of the church of Israel, who went to the Passover and the 
other festivals, — who observed its ordinances and rites, — was 
of necessity either a pious person or a hypocrite. 

It is by the same rule we decide that a temperance society, or 



THE COVEXAXT OF GEACE. 451 

any other society for the reformation of morals, is not a church 
of Christ. Its constitution does ' not include the covenant of 
grace. Persons may honestly join such a society, — they may 
enter into it according to the spirit of its constitution, and yet 
not be pious persons. 

I have said that every visible church covenant must contain 
the covenant of grace. It must contain something more than 
this, — some outward token or tokens ; something to give visibil- 
ity to the church. Thus the covenant with Abraham required 
circumcision ; the renewed covenant at Sinai required, besides 
circumcision, the Passover and other festivals and rites ; while 
our church covenants require baptism and the Lord's Supper. 

TTe thus see that these covenants, although they include the 
covenant of grace, are not themselves the covenant of grace. 
They require visible tokens, which the simple covenant of grace 
does not. Persons may enter the covenant of grace, and never 
enter the covenant of the visible church. In other words, they 
may become true Christians, and yet, owing to peculiar hin- 
drances, may never join themselves to the professed people of 
God. On the other hand, persons may ostensibly enter into the 
covenant of the church, or ma.y jprofess to enter it, and yet not 
enter the covenant of grace. 

What a blessing to a lost world — a blessing never to be duly 
estimated — is this covenant of grace ! How should it be hailed 
and welcomed everywhere with thanksgiving and the voice of 
praise ! How joyfully, instantly, should it be accepted and 
embraced, that so its promises may be realized and its everlast- 
ing blessings secured ! 

Among the astonishing things which the eye of Heaven 
witnesses on the earth, this is, perhaps, most of all astonishing, 
that the covenant of grace should be so long and so generally 
rejected ; that such multitudes of ruined creatures, to whom its 
blessings are freely proffered, should live and die out of it, and 
perish in their sins. 



452 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, 



LECTURE XLI. 

REGENERATION. 

The subject of our last Lecture was the covenant of grace. 
In no way can a sinner become interested in this gracious 
covenant, but by regeneration. I am naturally led, therefore, 
to bring before you, at this time, the important subject of 
regeneration. 

In treating of it, I propose to consider, first, the necessity, 
secondly the nature, and thirdly, the causes of this great spir- 
itual change. 

In our Saviour's conversation with Nicodemus he asserts, no 
less than three times, the necessity of the new birth, or regen- 
eration. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be 
born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." "Verily, 
verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of 
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." " Mar- 
vel not that I said unto you, Ye must be born again " (John 
iii. 3-7). 

*'And what our Saviour thus solemnly asserts, is confirmed by 
every day's observation. When we consider, on the one hand, 
what heaven is, — a place of unsullied purity, of perfect holi- 
ness, of perpetual and untiring devotion; and when, on the 
other hand, we look around us, and see what mankind are nat- 
urally, — selfish, proud, worldly, malicious, thoughtless of God 
and divine things, hateful and hating, one another; we see, at 
once, that the two never can come together. There must be a 
change somewhere ; and as the heaven of God's holiness cannot 
be changed, — cannot be brought down to meet the views of 
depraved, corrupted mortals, — it follows that these mortals must 
themselves be changed. They must become new creatures in 
Christ Jesus, or they can never go to heaven and be happy. 



REGENERATION. * 453 

Our Saviour's declaration to Nicodemus is true, because he 
said it. And it would have been true if he never had said it. 
It is true, in the very nature of things. It is one of the plainest 
and most obvious truths in the world. Men must be changed 
in the spirit of their minds, they must become new and holy 
creatures, or a holy heaven is to them impossible. They can 
never gain admittance there ; nor, if admitted, would it be any 
heaven to them. They could not enjoy it, or so much as 
endure it. 

The reason why a change so deep and radical as to be prop- 
erly denominated a regeneration is necessary for us, lies in the 
fact of our entire sinfulness by nature. If we had naturally no 
moral character, or if our characters were perfectly or partially 
holy, we should not need regeneration. If our moral characters 
were (as some believe) of a mixed nature, partly holy and partly 
sinful, we might need reforming, but not renewing. We might 
need to be amended and improved, but not to be born again. 
It is the fact of our total natural depravity, our entire sinfulness, 
— " every imagination and thought of our heart being only evil, 
and that continually," — which renders it indispensable that we 
should be regenerated, in order to see the kingdom of God. 

But if regeneration is so necessary for us, in order to go 
to heaven, the question is one of surpassing interest : What is 
regeneration? What are we to think of that change which all 
must experience, or never see the kingdom of God? 

With regard to the nature of regeneration, different opinions 
have been entertained, some of which it will be necessary to 
examine. 

Some have said that regeneration is the same as baptism. 
This notion appeared early in the church of Christ; the fathers 
mistaking the sign for the thing signified. It is still insisted 
on by Roman Catholics and high-church Episcopalians. We 
find the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in the liturgies of 
the American Episcopal Church, and of the Church of England. 

But to us this notion seems almost too absurd to need refuta- 
tion. Eegeneration is an inward, spiritual change, but baptism 
is an outward material application. Thousands have been bap- 
tized who were not regenerated; while other thousands have 



454 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

been regenerated, but not baptized. Baptism with water is one 
thing ; the baptism of the Spirit quite another thing. Baptism 
is a sign, an emblem of regeneration ; but to call it regeneration 
is strangely to confound the sign and the thing signified. 

It has been said that, although baptism itself is not regenera- 
tion, yet a spiritual influence invariably accompanies baptism, 
when canonically administered, by which the subject is regen- 
erated. But what evidence have we of this accompanying spir- 
itual influence ? Is it anywhere promised ? Is the fact of its 
existence anywhere asserted in the Scriptures? Or do the 
fruits of it invariably appear ? Do those who have been canon- 
ically baptized exhibit evidence, uniformly, in their lives and 
conversation, that they have been born again ? On the contrary, 
do they not in thousands and thousands of instances exhibit the 
most painful, conclusive evidence that they are not regenerated 
persons? Simon, the sorcerer, received a valid apostolical 
baptism ; but surely we are not to regard him as a regenerated 
man. Besides ; regeneration, the renewal of the heart, stands 
connected with salvation. Are we then to regard baptism, 
either on its own account, or because of any influence which is 
supposed to accompany it, as invariably connected with salva- 
tion? Do all those who receive a canonical, valid baptism 
become, on that account, the heirs of heaven? 

But it is needless to waste words on so plain a subject. The 
dogma of baptismal regeneration, however explained, is no 
better than an idle, unfounded superstition \ It came into the 
church in an age of comparative darkness, and ought, long ago, 
to have been expurgated out of it. It is not only without sup- 
port in reason or the Word of God, but is of pernicious practical 
influence, leading those who embrace it to trust in an outward 
rite, when they ought to be cherishing an inward grace. 

Some have supposed that regeneration is a mere change of re- 
ligious profession, as from Paganism or Judaism to Christianity. 
But a change of profession is not an inward, spiritual change. 
It does not imply necessarily a change of heart. The possession 
of holiness, and the profession of it, are different things. Simon, 
the sorcerer, changed his religious profession, but he was not a 



REGENEKATION. 455 

subject of renewing grace ; and the same may be said of a great 
many others. 

Some have thought that regeneration consists in a gradual 
reformation of conduct. When the profane person has left off 
his swearing, and the inebriate has forsaken his cups, and the 
knave has established a reputation for honor and honesty, each 
of these characters may be said to be regenerated. But here 
again we have an outward, in place of an inward, change. We 
have also a gradual, in place of an instantaneous, work. Every 
person is represented in Scripture as either a saint or a sinner, 
an heir of glory or perdition. We never read of persons partly 
regenerated, and partly not ; the heirs neither of heaven nor 
hell, but in part of both. And yet there would be such a class, 
if regeneration were a gradual process and work. 

Some regard regeneration as a change in the very constitution 
and faculties of the soul. But do we need any such change as 
this ? Do we need any new or different faculties, in order to our 
preparation for heaven? Our faculties would be well enough, 
if we would use them well. We have all the faculties requisite 
to a complete moral agency, and we need no more. 

Besides, it does not appear that in regeneration persons 
receive any new or additional faculties. They have the same 
faculties, bodily and mental, subsequent to this, change, that they 
had before. They use their faculties now to better purpose. 
Instead of prostituting them to the service of sin and Satan, 
they employ them in the service and for the glory of God. 

It may aid us in our further inquiries on this important sub- 
ject, to consider, first, what takes place in the mind previous 
and preparatory to regeneration ; and, secondly, in what the 
change itself consists. 

We will suppose an individual in a state, not only of sin, but 
of stupidity and religious indifference, like that in which the 
world are generally involved. The incipient work of the divine 
Spirit upon the mind of this man, preparatory to his regenera- 
tion, is, probably, in the understanding. Light is poured into 
his mind, and he is led to think, to reflect, upon a new class of 
subjects. His thoughts are drawn out of their wonted channels, 
and fixed upon the great, but hitherto neglected, subject of 



456 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

religion. He thinks of God, of his attributes, perfections, char- 
acter, and government. He thinks of the holy law of God, — of 
its extent, its strictness, its purity, and its inviolable sanctions. 
He thinks of his own transgressions, and of the fearful doom 
which hangs impending over him. He thinks of death, of judg- 
ment, and eternal scenes. His understanding is opened to see 
these truths in such a light as he never did before. He has a 
vivid perception of them. They seem to him like realities, and 
seem very near. 

Such is the preparatory work of the Holy Spirit in the under- 
standing of the sinner. I say the preparatory work ; for he is 
not yet converted, nor is it certain that he ever will be. 

While this change is going on in the understanding, the sensi- 
bilities are more or less affected. The baser feelings of the soul 
— those under the influence of which the individual had acted 
in the days of his stupidity and world] iness — are, for the time, 
held in check, and other feelings are awakened. He is the sub- 
ject now of shame, remorse, anxiety, and fear. He feels a sense 
of guilt and of condemnation. He is astonished at his past 
course of life, and wonders that God has borne with him as he 
has. He is "pricked to the heart" by the sword of the Spirit, 
and begins to inquire, with a solemn earnestness, "Men and 
brethren, what shall I do?" 

Still, this individual is not converted, nor is it yet certain that 
he ever will be. His understanding is enlightened ; his sensibil- 
ities are affected. An indispensable preparatory work has been 
done, but he has not yet put forth one holy affection, or drawn 
one breath of spiritual life. He has what are called the striv- 
ings of the Spirit ; but he may grieve the Spirit from him, and 
relapse into a state of greater hardness than ever. 

But if he does not grieve the Spirit to depart ; if the process 
of illumination and impression goes on ; the will, the affections, 
will soon be gained. The motives of the gospel will predomi- 
nate over all opposing influences. Under some form of presen- 
tation, these motives will be yielded to; and in the moment 
of yielding, the heart is changed. 

It matters not in view of what truth the first holy affection is 
put forth, or what form this affection assumes. It may be love, 



REGENERATION. 457 

in view of the divine perfections and character : it may be grat- 
itude under a sense of the divine goodness and mercy : it may 
be grief and godly sorrow, in view of personal sin and guilt : it 
may be a cordial submission to the divine government : it may 
be an affectionate trust and confidence in the Saviour : — but 
whatever name or form the affection may assume, if it is a holy 
affection, and the first holv affection, the change which it con- 
stitutes is regeneration. The subject of it is born again. He 
has commenced a new character, and is spiritually a new crea- 
ture. He has entered into the covenant of grace, and by so 
doing has come into a new relation to God, to the Saviour, and 
to the universe. His first holy affection will not be the last. 
These new and holy exercises will be repeated and strengthened, 
and he will be led into the rjerformance of all Christian duty. 
The grace which he has received will be in him as a well of 
water, springing up unto everlasting life. 

Eegeneration, I have described, as a yielding of the heart to 
God ; a yielding of the affections, in some form, to the power 
and influence of the gospel. It follows from this account of the 
matter that, in regeneration, the subject of it is active. The 
sinner may have ever so much of light and impression ; he may 
be a subject, to any degree, of the strivings of the Holy Spirit ; 
until the heart is yielded, and the wiU boics, he is not regener- 
ated. But in the moment of yielding — and from the nature of 
the case this must be a cordial, voluntary yielding — the great 
point is gained, and the peace of heaven is secured. 

I do not say that the change in regeneration is a purely vol- 
untary one: for some of those holy affections, which are first 
called into exercise, are not of a purely voluntary character. 
They are, in their nature, complex ; partly sentient, and but 
partly voluntary. Such, for example, are complacent love, 
holy gratitude, repentance, and faith. Still, they are so far of 
a voluntary character as to render the change induced by them 
an active change. The voluntary element so mingles with them, 
and they are so much under the direction of the will, that in 
putting them forth in regeneration, the subject of them is 
responsible and active. 
58 



458 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

That this is a correct view of regeneration may be proved 
from several considerations. 

1. Regeneration may be supposed to be, as to its nature, the 
opposite of the fall. And as the fall of man consisted in his 
yielding to the seductions of the tempter, and beginning actively 
to commit sin ; so his regeneration consists in his yielding to 
the motives of the gospel, and beginning actively to love and 
serve God. 

2. Truth, motives, moral considerations are represented in 
the Scriptures as the instrumental causes of regeneration. 
"Born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by 
the ivord of God" (1 Pet. i. 23). "I have begotten you, 
through the gospel" (1 Cor. iv. 15). But moral considerations 
are addressed, of course, to the active nature of man. Motives 
have no power or tendency to bring about a physical change, or 
one in which the subject is passive, but only one in which he is 
active. 

3. God exhorts and commands sinners to make to themselves 
new hearts ; or (which is the same) to become regenerated per- 
sons. " Make you a new heart, and a new spirit" (Ezek. xviii. 
31). " Circumcise the foreskin of your heart ; and be no more 
stiff-necked" (Deut. x. 16). 

4. God not only commands sinners to make new hearts, but 
he severely threatens them, in case they do not comply. " Turn 
ye, turn ye, from your evil ways ; for why will ye die," — im- 
porting that they must die, and die eternally, in case they do 
not turn (Ezek. xxxiii. 11). "Circumcise yourselves to the 
Lord, and take away the foreskin of your hearts, lest my fury 
come forth, like fire, and hum that none can quench it" (Jer. 
iv. 4). 

5. Christ sends forth his ambassadors for this very purpose, 
that they may urge men to repent, and turn to God ; or (which 
is the same) to become new creatures. 

6. The apostles and first preachers of the gospel engaged in 
this work, without the least seeming embarrassment from their 
philosophy. They besought sinners, in Christ's stead, to become 
reconciled to God. They cried in the ears of guilty and lost 
men: "Come, come, for all things are now ready." And if 



REGENERATION. 459 

any did not come, they told them plainly that it was because 
they would not. 

7. I may appeal finally, on this question, to the conscious 
experience of all truly regenerated persons. Christ has various 
methods of dealing with men, in preparing them for his spiritual 
kingdom ; but they all enter the kingdom by the same narrow 
gate, — conversion. And of what are they sensible in conver- 
sion? What kind of change is it, so far as their consciousness 
extends? Have any new faculties been given them? Have 
they been physically wrought over into some other kind of 
creatures ? Have they been sensible of any constraint upon the 
free and regular exercise of their natural powers ? Nothing of 
all this. But they are conscious, in some way, of giving their 
hearts to God; of yielding, in some form, to the motives and 
influences of the gospel. They are conscious now of freely, 
spontaneously loving God, submitting to God, of turning away 
from sin, and of putting their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. 
They feel that they have experienced a great and glorious 
change ; but it has been a change (so far as their consciousness 
can reach) in the free exercises of their own minds and "hearts ; 
a change of sinful affections for holy affections; a change from 
the love of sin, and self, and the world, to the love of God 
and the things of his kingdom. It is their consciousness of 
having experienced such a change as this, which leads them to 
hope that they have been regenerated, — that they have truly 
passed from death unto life. 

The view of regeneration here exhibited is one of great prac- 
tical importance, more especially to ministers. In the belief of 
it, the minister of Christ may go to his fellow-men on the sub- 
ject of religion, as he would on any other important subject, and 
instruct and warn, and endeavor to persuade them, feeling that 
the point urged was one in which they were to be active, and in 
reference to which persuasion was pertinent and necessary. 
Thus, obviously, the apostles addressed their hearers : "Repent, 
and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." " Repent 
ye, and believe the gospel." They felt no more embarrassment 
in calling sinners to repentance, than in calling Christians to 
the performance of any spiritual duty. 



460 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

But let the other view be taken. Let it be settled in a minis- 
ter's mind that the sinner is passive in regeneration, — that a 
change is to be wrought in him in which he is to have no active 
concern, before he can perform any spiritual duty ; and what 
can such a minister say to impenitent men, on the great subject 
of the soul's salvation? He may condole with them. He may 
pity them, and pray for them. He may direct them to pray 
with such hearts as they have, and wait for a change. But he 
cannot urge them to an immediate repentance, or to the direct 
performance of any spiritual duty. Or if he does address them 
in exhortations such as these, it will be with a secret misgiving, 
— a feeling that his exhortations are inconsistent with his belief. 
And exhortations uttered in such a state of mind will lack 
heart and earnestness, and will not be likely to do much good. 
In this view, I am constrained to regard the doctrine of passive 
regeneration as one calculated to strip the gospel minister of 
his armor, and to clog and embarrass him in his Master's work. 
At the same time, it is calculated to fill the mouths of sinners 
with excuses and objections, and furnish them with new refuges 
of lies, under cover of which they may sleep themselves into 
perdition. 

Perhaps it will be said that the sinner is both passive and 
active in regeneration, — passive, so far as the influences of the 
Spirit are concerned ; and active, in putting forth the first holy 
affection, in which the regeneration properly consists. If this 
statement only means, that the subject of regeneration is acted 
upon, while he freely acts; or that the Divine Spirit works in 
him to will and to do, while he actively wills and does ; there 
is no objection to it. The sentiment intended is undoubtedly 
true. But then this truth is applicable, not only to the first 
holy exercise in regeneration, but to all the holy exercises of 
Christians. These exercises are all of them fruits of the Spirit's 
operation ; and it may be said as truly that Christians are both 
passive and active in all their religious experience, as that sin- 
ners are both passive and active in regeneration. 

Some have made a distinction between regeneration and con- 
version ; representing the former as the work of the Spirit, in 
which the subject is passive, and the latter as his own work, in 



EEGENEEATION. 461 

s 

which he is active. But to this view of the case, there are sev- 
eral objections. In the first place, in passages already quoted, 
God commands sinners to make to themselves new hearts, or 
(which is the same) to become regenerated persons ; implying 
that, in regeneration, they have something to do. • We have 
seen, also, that sinners are " born again by the word of God." 
But the word of God can have no instrumentality in bringing 
about a mere passive transformation. Then the statement above 
given presents an inadequate view of conversion. Conversion 
is as much a fruit of the Spirit's operation as regeneration is ; 
and to represent it as the mere work of the sinner is to pervert 
and degrade it. 

Besides ; on the ground of the distinction here set up, what 
are we to think of the state of the sinner between regeneration 
and conversion? He is regenerated; and yet he has never 
repented, never believed, never put forth one holy affection. 
He cannot be lost, because he is regenerated ; nor can he be 
saved, because he is unconverted. "Except ye be converted, 
and become as little children, }^e shall in no case enter the 
kingdom of heaven" (Matt, xviii. 3). 

I am constrained to think, therefore, notwithstanding the high 
authorities which may be quoted on the other side, that there is 
no real, valid distinction between regeneration and conversion. 
Both are the result of a divine operation ; while both indicate a 
change in which the subject is active and free. 

In thinking and speaking of regeneration, persons often im- 
pose upon themselves by the use of figurative terms. To give 
but a single example : Regeneration, it is said, is the commence- 
ment of spiritual life ; and as there must be life before there can 
be active motion, so the sinner must be regenerated before he 
can perform any spiritual duty. 

The fallacy here is ju the figurative use of the term life. 
What is spiritual life but holiness? And what is holiness, but 
in connection with some holy exercise or affection ? And can 
there be any holy exercise or affection which is not actively put 
forth? Can there be any regeneration, therefore, — regarding 
regeneration as the commencement of spiritual life, — but an 
active regeneration ? 



462 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

It is indispensable, to a right understanding of this subject, to 
keep constantly in mind the nature of holiness. Holiness is a 
property of moral exercises, affections, or actions, and of these 
only. When it is said, therefore, that regeneration is the com- 
mencement of spiritual life or holiness in the heart, this is but 
saying that it is the commencement of holy affections in that 
heart ; and these, from the nature of them, must be actively put 
forth. They can c^me into the mind in no other way. 

In dwelling thus particularly on the nature of regeneration, 
I have incidentally set forth its causes. It may be well, how- 
ever, to treat somewhat more specifically this branch of the 
subject. 

The causes of regeneration may be divided into three classes : 
the instrumental, the efficient, and the active or voluntary. 

The instrumental cause of regeneration is truth, motives, the 
means of grace. The truth is presented ; the gospel is preached ; 
means are used ; motives are urged ; and in view of them, and 
under their influence, the will bows and the heart is changed. 
Accordingly, Christians are said, in passages before quoted, to 
have been "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incor- 
ruptible, by the word of God; " and to have been " begotten 
through the gospel" (1 Pet. i. 23 ; 1 Cor. iv. 15). 

This fact, which is strongly supported by Scripture, goes to 
illustrate (as before remarked) the nature of regeneration. If 
regeneration were a physical change, in which the subject was 
altogether passive, it might be wrought in us without the inter- 
vention of motives. Indeed it must be, if wrought at all. Mo- 
tives would have no place or use in accomplishing such* a 
change as this. But as regeneration is a moral, spiritual change, 
in which the subject is free and active, it must be accomplished 
(if at all) through the instrumentality of motives. It can be 
accomplished in no other way. It is not irreverent, perhaps, to 
say, that not even the Divine Spirit can regenerate a soul, except 
through the intervention of moral means. 

But motives are but the instrumental causes of regeneration. 
They have no efficiency in themselves. The efficiency is all of 
God. "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the 
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John i. 13). God 



REGENERATION. 463 

governs the moral world by motives. This is a law of divine 
operation. And this law is not contravened or suspended in re- 
generation. The divine power is exerted, not to interrupt the 
regular exercise of the human faculties, or to suspend the in- 
fluence of motives, but to sustain both; not to infringe upon the 
creature's freedom, but to make him, if possible, more free 
than ever. The current of his affections is changed, under the 
influence of motives, and by the mighty power of God, while 
the new and holy affections are freely put forth. The sinner is 
renewed, not against his will, or without the consent of his will ; 
but he becomes ivilling in the day of GooVs power. 

He is himself, therefore, the active cause or agent in the 
change which he has experienced. The first holy affection is 
Ms; he puts it forth; and he is really responsible for it, — as 
really so as for the last sinful one. He has begun to love, to 
repent, to believe, to submit, and obey ; and he does all this 
actively. How can it be done in any other way? There has 
been no compulsion or constraint put upon his moral powers, 
and there is none. He is as free in his holy exercises as he ever 
was in his sinful ones. He was as free and as active in his Jirst 
holy affection, as in any that followed it ; and is himself the 
agent, or active cause in the change which has been wrought. 
The prime efficiency was of God ; the instrumentality employed 
was the truth of God ; but the activity, the responsible agency, — 
the loving, repenting, believing, submitting, obeying, are all 
his own. They can belong to no one else. 

I have more to offer on the important subject before us, which 
mest be deferred to another Lecture. 



464 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUKE XLIL 

REGENERATION. 

In my last, I spoke of the necessity of regeneration, of its 
nature, and its causes. It is necessary, because of the entire 
sinfulness of the natural heart. In it " dwelleth no good thing." 
In its nature, regeneration is an active change in our moral ex- 
ercises or affections, from those which are sinful to those which 
are holy. The instrumental cause of this change is truth, or 
motives ; the efficient cause is the Holy Spirit ; the active cause 
or agent is the regenerated person. 

It may be inquired here, how the Spirit of God can be the 
efficient cause of regeneration, and yet the subject be active in 
it? If it is God's work, how can it be man's work? If the new 
heart is the gift of God, what has man to do but wait for it, 
and passively receive it when it is bestowed ? 

Whether we can satisfactorily explain this matter, or not, the 
facts in regard to it are plainly set before us in the Scriptures ; 
and they correspond to the statements before made. Take the 
following passages as an example : " A new heart also will I 
give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will 
take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you 
an heart of flesh " (Ezek. xxxvi. 26) . " Make you a new heart, 
and a new spirit; for why will ye die, O house of Israel!" 
(Ezek. xviii. 31.) In the former of these passages, God prom- 
ises to give the new heart and the new spirit ; implying that 
the bestowment of it is his own work. In the latter passage, 
sinners are required to make to themselves new hearts and new 
spirits ; implying that this is their work, — a duty which they 
may well be required to perform. 

Nor do these Scriptures stand alone. We find many others 



REGENERATION. 465 

of like import, in which the same apparent difficulty occurs. 
Thus, while we are exhorted in hundreds of passages to believe 
in Christ, or to exercise faith in him ; faith is expressly repre- 
sented as the gift of God (Eph. ii. 8). And so also of repent- 
ance. Christ is " exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give 
repentance unto Israel, and remission of sins" (Acts v. 31). 
And yet God "now commandeth all men, everywhere, to 
repent" (Acts xvii. 30). The same is true, in fact, of all holy 
affections. They are all of them represented as fruits of the 
Spirit's operation. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, 
long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temper- 
ance " (Gal. v. 22) . And yet there is not one of these Christian 
virtues which is not enjoined upon us, in other parts of the 
Bible, as a duty. 

Nor does the difficulty, if it be one, end even here. What do 
Christians mean when they pray for an increase of holy affec- 
tions in their own souls, and in the souls of their brethren, and 
for the awakening and conversion of sinners ? Nearly all our 
prayers for spiritual blessings, whether for ourselves or others, 
are of this description ; and in view of them, a caviller might 
say to the praying Christian : Do you not acknowledge it to be 
your duty to grow in grace, to become more holy, to increase 
in the exercise of holy affections? And is not this the duty of 
other Christians ? And is it not the duty of sinners to turn to 
God, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance? Why, then, 
ask God to do that for you which it is your acknowledged duty 
to do for yourselves ? And why pray to God to do that for 
others which it is their duty to perform ? 

I make these statements for the purpose of showing that the 
difficulty (if it be one) is of wide extent, running through the 
whole Bible, and touching upon our religious exercises and 
duties everywhere. But, really, there is no great difficulty in 
the case. The Spirit of God is the efficient cause of all holy 
affections, — not only of the first, which is put forth in regen- 
eration, but of all the rest. And yet, when these affections are 
excited, awakened within us, they are our own. We are free 
in the exercise of them, and personally active in putting them 
forth. God has his appropriate work in this matter of con- 

59 



466 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

version and sanctification, and we have ours. God performs 
his own work, and we perform ours. We are not called upon 
efficiently to cause holy affections, either in our own hearts or 
the hearts of others. This belongs to the Divine Spirit, and is 
by him performed, if it is ever done. We are called upon 
actively to exercise holy affections, or to put them forth. This 
work belongs to us, and is performed by us, if it is ever done. 
God awakens within us the' exercise of repentance ; but he does 
not repent for us. It is we that repent. God produces faith 
in the heart of the believer ; but it is the believer who exercises 
faith. God does not exercise it for him. God gives the new 
heart in regeneration, or (which is the same) excites holy affec- 
tions, where only sinful ones had existed before. But God does 
not actively put forth these new affections. This is the work 
of the new creature. And so of all the Christian graces and 
virtues, from the first, which appears in regeneration, to the 
last, which shines forth in heavenly glory. Were God and man 
represented as performing, in regeneration and sanctification, 
precisely the same things, at the same time, and in the same 
way, there would be a difficulty, — an insuperable difficulty: 
But this, we have seen, is not the case. Their works, though 
relating to the same subject, are diverse and distinct, and are 
carried on harmoniously together. To suppose the contrary, 
would be to assume that a mind cannot be acted upon and yet 
act ; that God cannot "work in us to will and to do," while we 
"work out our own salvation with fear and trembling." 

It may be inquired, again, whether the agency of the Spirit 
in regeneration is direct or indirect ; whether the only work of 
the Spirit is to present and urge the motives of the gospel, of 
whether, in connection with this, there is a direct operation or 
influence upon the mind of the regenerated person. We hold 
the latter opinion, and for the following reasons : — 

1. It seems better to comport with the full, unfrittered mean- 
ing of the Bible on this subject. The Scriptures do, indeed, 
teach that God converts men by the truth ; but not that he 
works in this way only. On the contrary, the language of 
Scripture seems clearly to indicate a more direct application of 
the divine power and grace. Accordingly, renewed souls are 



EEGENEEATION. 467 

spoken of as God's workmanship, Gods building. They have 
been new created in Christ Jesus. And the power by which 
they have been new created is said to have wrought effectually 
in them. In the account which the sacred writer has given us 
of the conversion of Lydia, it is said that " the Lord opened her 
heart, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of 
Paul" (Acts xvi. 14). She did not first attend, and get her 
heart open ; but "the Lord opened her heart that she attended; " 
importing a direct influence, by which her mind was disposed to 
attend, and prepared to receive the truth. 

2. We reject the supposition of a mere indirect influence, 
because it is unreasonable, unphilosophical. There is no effi- 
ciency in motives themselves, by whomsoever urged ; and there 
is no independent efficiency in the human mind, — unless we 
will set up the self-originating power of the human will. Con- 
sequently, if we exclude the divine efficiency here, there is no 
other, and the heart will remain unchanged forever. 

3. The supposition of a mere indirect influence is contra- 
dicted by facts. Facts are frequently occurring, under the 
faithful preaching of the gospel, which can be accounted for 
only on the supposition of an immediate divine. influence. Here 
is a person who has attended the same meeting, and heard the 
same truths, from the lips of the same preacher, perhaps hun- 
dreds of times ; and in every instance without any good effect. 
The most weighty considerations are urged upon him, but he 
continues indifferent and insensible. At length, however, his 
heart is touched, and the truth comes armed with unwonted 
power. It arrests attention, excites feeling, leads on to a new 
train of thoughts and exercises, and speedily becomes the power 
of God unto salvation. But why this sudden and surprising 
change? The truth dispensed is the same. It is no longer or 
shorter, no more or less potent or important, than it was before. 
The preacher, too, is the same, and outward circumstances all 
the same. Must we not necessarily conclude in a case like this 
(and they are very common), that there has been a secret, invis- 
ible influence on the mind of the individual concerned? His 
heart has been opened, like that of Lydia, that he attended unto 
the things which before he neglected. God has been preparing 






468 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

his mind for the truth, as well as truth for his mind. By a 
direct influence he is led to hear and to feel ; and he soon 
becomes willing in the day of God's power. 

In view of the explanations before given, it may be asked, in 
what respects regeneration differs from sanctification? The 
putting forth of the first holy affection, it seems, constitutes 
regeneration. But as to its origin and exercise, how does this 
first holy affection differ from the second, or the third, or from 
any which follow? And, in this view,*s regeneration anything 
more than the commencement of sanctification ; and may not 
sanctification be regarded as a continuous regeneration ? As to 
the psychological differences (if there be any) between regen- 
eration and sanctification, I cannot pretend to speak. The 
subject scarcely admits of a philosophical investigation. But in. 
several points of view, certainty, the two things are different. 
For regeneration there is, ordinarily, a preparatory work in the 
intellect and sensibilities, which is not called for in sanctification. 
Then regeneration involves a turning about, a turning back, of 
the perverted currents of the soul ; the first implanting of holy 
exercises, where they had never been before. As the literal 
creation differs from the work of providence, so does the new 
creation differ from that which follows. Sanctification, like 
providence, preserves and continues what the new creation had 
begun. Also regeneration, unlike sanctification, brings the 
subject of it, at once, into the covenant of grace — into new 
relations to God, to Christ, to the Holy Spirit, and to the church 
of the first-born. Being born of God, the regenerated person 
is a child of God and an heir of heaven. 

Those who press the inquiry now before us regard regenera- 
tion as the implanting, not of a holy exercise or affection, but 
of a holy nature, or principle, or something else, which lies 
back of all holy exercises, is the ground of them, and in the 
reception of which the subject has no active concern. But this 
supposition is open to insuperable objections ; and, as we have 
seen, there is no necessity of resorting to it, in order to make 
out important differences, — all the differences which are of any 
moment, between regeneration and sanctification. 

It may be inquired still farther, according to the views of 



REGENERATION. 469 

regeneration which have been given, in what respects the 
backslidden Christian differs from the impenitent sinner. He 
differs, — 

1. In that he knows experimentally, what it is to be a Chris- 
tian, and to have the views and exercises of a Christian ; which 
the sinner does not know. 

2. There is a certainty in the case of the backslidden Chris- 
tian that he will be restored ; but there is no certainty that the 
sinner will ever be converted. 

3. It believed that the Christian, even in his backsliding., 
has an internal experience, of which the sinner is entirely igno- 
rant. He still has some holy desires and endeavors. He feels 
the burden which is upon him, and often sighs and struggles 
for deliverance. The grand purpose of his soul, formed at or 
near the time of his conversion, to serve and glorify God, and 
live for the advancement of his kingdom, is not utterly renounced. 
It is wandered from, and for the time broken, but not renounced. 
He sins, but not like the impenitent sinner, with his whole heart. 
He cannot so sin, because he is born of God (1 John iii. 9). 
In short, the backslider, or slider-bacJcicards, has his face 
upward. His face is the right way ; and he will yet recover, 
said run the right way. But the impenitent soul has his face 
the wrong way ; and is rushing headlong to perdition. 

4. The Christian, even in his backslidings, is not entirely 
deserted of the Holy Spirit. As he has some holy desires, 
endeavors, and purposes, he must be supposed to have the 
Spirit, in some degree, to sustain these half-quenched upward 
aspirations, preserve them from utter extinction, and the subject 
of them from apostasy and ruin. 

It will be seen, therefore, that there are important differences 
between the backslidden believer and the impenitent sinner, 
without supposing the former to have received, in regeneration, 
a dormant, inactive principle of holiness, which he had no 
concern in procuring, and which he can never lose. 

As regeneration is a change in the affections from those which 
are sinful to those which are holy, the proper evidence of it is 
the conscious possession and exemplification of holy affections. 
Do we love the character of God, his law, and his government? 



470 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Do we submit to that government, and rejoice in it? Do we 
hate sin, sorrow for it after a godly sort, and seek and strive to 
be delivered from its fatal power? Do we love the character 
and work of Christ, and put all our trust in him, relying on 
him, and him alone for pardon and salvation? Is this our 
inward, conscious experience from day to day, and are our 
conversation and, life in accordance with it ? If we can soberly 
answer these questions in the affirmative, we need no super- 
natural impression or revelation to confirm our hopes. We 
have the best evidence in the world, — all the evidence which 
the nature of the case admits, that we are regenerated persons. 
But if our inward experience is not of this character ; if we have 
not these holy, Christian affections abiding, reigning in our 
hearts ; whatever else we may build our hopes upon, it is all in 
vain. No other kind or amount of evidence ought to satisfy us, 
for a moment, that we have been born of God. 



KEPENTA^CE. 471 



LECTUEE XL1IL 

REPENTANCE. 

Repe:n t taxce is one of the cardinal conditions of the covenant 
of grace. "Repent and be converted, that your sins may be 
blotted out" (Acts iii. 19). "Except ye repent, ye shall all 
likewise perish" (Luke xiii. 3). 

There are two Greek verbs which, in our English version of 
the New Testament, are translated repent ; //era i «clo//oa, and 
[leTccvdeu). The former properly signifies to be anxious about 
a thing, to regret it afterwards. The latter denotes a more 
thorough change of the mind in regard to it. The following 
are instances of the use of the first word. "Then Judas, when 
he saw that he was condemned, repented himself," i. e., regretted 
what he had clone, " and brought again the thirty pieces of sil- 
ver " (Matt, xxvii. 3). "For though I made you sorry with a 
letter, I do not repent," i. e. regret it, "though I did repent," 
i, e. regret it (2 Cor. vii. 8.) "The Lord sware, and will 
not repent," i. e., regret it afterwards, "thou art a priest for- 
ever, after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. vii. 21). 

As I said, the other word, /usiavd^oj, denotes a more thorough 
change of mind, and frequently, though not uniformly, ex- 
presses what may be called a true, evangelical repentance. It 
is of such repentance that I propose to treat in this Lecture. 
My plan will be, — 

I. To describe repentance. And, 

II. To show why it is necessary, in order to forgiveness. 

In describing repentance, I need not notice all the mistakes 
and errors which' have been held respecting it. The Roman 
Catholic tells us that repentance is the same as doing penance, 
and that this is a proper translation of the original word. But 



472 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

this every one at all acquainted with the Greek language knows 
to be false. Others tall us that repentance means reformation ; 
and they translate the original word accordingly. But this is 
to confound repentance with its fruits, and render absurd not a 
few of the representations of Scripture. John the Baptist called 
on his hearers, not only to repent, but to bring forth fruits meet 
for repentance ; in other words, to reform their outward lives ; 
implying a distinction between repentance and reformation. 

The word fisTavoeoj, which we translate repent, literally signi- 
fies a change of mind. Accordingly, repentance imports an 
internal, spiritual change, a change of character. Repentance 
may be said, in general terms, to consist in a turning away 
from sin. Under a sense of the intrinsic odiousness of sin, 
the penitent turns from it with loathing and abhorrence. But 
under this general view of the subject, various particulars are 
included. As, 

1. Conviction of sin. Persons never repent of their sins till 
they are convinced of them, or come to a knowledge of them. 
And this is something more than a mere intellectual conviction. 
It is a conviction in conscience ; a conviction attended with more 
or less of feeling, remorse, distress. 

2. Repentance implies a holy hatred of sin, and godly sorrow 
on account of it. There are two kinds of sorrow for sin ; the 
sorrow of the world, which worketh death, and godly sorrow, 
which worketh repentance unto life. The sorrow of the world 
may be a sorrow on account of the event of sin ; or a sorrow on 
account of some of its present or anticipated consequences ; and 
not on account of its evil and hateful nature. 

I know not that I ought to be sorry that such an event took 
place, in the providence of Gocl, as the fall of our first parents, 
or as the crucifixion of Christ. Joseph did not wish his brethren 
to be grieved or angry with themselves that they had sold him 
into Egypt, considering their act as an event in the providence 
of Gx>d, which had been overruled for good. To be sorry and 
complain at the event of sin may be even sinful. It may be as 
sinful as to complain on account of any other event in provi- 
dence. Godly sorrow for sin is something very different from 
this. 



REPENTANCE. •' 473 

We often see persons grieving and sorrowing on account of 
the present or anticipated consequences of sin. Their sins have 
brought them into disgrace and trouble, or they fear that they 
will, in this life, or the future, or in both ; and they are exceed- 
ingly sorrow that they have committed them. They weep and 
mourn, they blame and reproach themselves, that they have 
sinned. At the same time, they have no sense of the intrinsic 
evil of sin, — its unreasonableness, its ingratitude, its odiousness 
and baseness ; and, could they be sure of a deliverance from its 
dreaded consequences, they would desire no more. 

Now, a holy, godly sorrow for sin is very different from all 
this. Godly sorrow is comparatively regardless of conse- 
quences. It fixes upon sin itself, as being opposed to God, — 
to his character, his law, his government, his glory ; as opposed 
to Christ, and to all the exhibitions of his love ; as opposed to 
the strivings and influences of the Holy Spirit ; as opposition to 
everything good, and as being itself the worst of all evils ; and 
with this view of the subject, the heart of the penitent is filled, 
engrossed. This is what he detests and hates. To be delivered 
from the mere consequences of sin would bring no relief to a 
mind in this state. It seeks deliverance from sin itself; and 
nothing short of this would be accounted a salvation. 

3. Repentance implies self-abasement, self-loathing, self- 
abhorrence, on account of sin. We may hate and detest the 
sinful conduct of others ; we may have a holy sorrow on account 
of it. But we never repent of the sins of others. Accordingly, 
godly sorrow is spoken of by Paul as working repentance, rather 
than as constituting the whole of repentauce (2 Cor. vii. 10). 
The penitent sinner hates sjn with a holy hatred. He sorrows 
for it after a godly sort. And with these feelings, when he 
turns his eye inward on himself, he necessarily abases and abhors 
himself. He cannot bear a view of his own character. He 
exclaims with Job, " Behold, I am vile ! " and, with Paul, " Oh, 
wretched man that I am ! " Under a sense of his unworthiness 
and guilt, the penitent sinner abases himself before God, accepts 
the punishment of his iniquities, and is willing to become a 
beggar for mercy. I remark, — 

4. Repentance implies a forsaking of sin, and a persevering 

60 



474 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

struggle to resist and overcome it. "Without this, there can be 
no repentance ; and yet it may be truly said, that where the 
feelings above described exist, there will be a consequent strug- 
gle against sin. While under the influence of these feelings, 
the sinner cannot allow himself in sin. He turns from whatever 
he regards as sinful with abhorrence. When temptation besets 
him, he strives against it ; and if, at any time, he falls before 
it, he rises again, girds on his armor, and prays for strength, 
that he may renew the contest more successfully. Indeed, he 
is resolved never to cease from this conflict till he comes off a 
conqueror, and more than a conqueror, through Him that has 
loved him and given himself for him. 

It follows from what has been said, that repentance, in the 
larger sense of the term, is a complex mental affection, and 
requires to be analyzed in order to be understood. First of all, 
there is conviction of sin, itself complex, partly intellectual and 
partly sentient. Then there is godly sorrow for sin, and self- 
abhorrence on account of it, both complex, chiefly sentient, but 
to some extent voluntary. And then there is the forsaking of 
sin, the turning away from it, which is almost, if not entirely, 
voluntary. These several parts are all necessarily involved in 
that /usTccvoia, that deep and thorough mental change which we 
call repentance ; constituting it a very complex affection, — not 
purely voluntary, but sufficiently so to give it a holy, spiritual 
character, and make it the proper subject of divine command. 

We learn, further, from what has been said, that the marks of 
distinction between true and false repentance are very obvious. 
The false penitent sorrows chiefly for the event of sin, or on 
account of its present or future consequences ; while the true 
penitent sorrows for sin itself. The false penitent is chiefly 
distressed in view of open, public offences ; while the true pen- 
itent is equally concerned for his secret sins, — those which are 
known only to himself and God. His prayer is that he may be 
cleansed from secret faults, as well as kept back from more pre- 
sumptuous sins. The false penitent, if he can be said to forsake 
sin at all, only forsakes one course of sin for another, of perhaps 
a more decent character ; while the true penitent hates all sin, 



REPENTANCE. 475 

and endeavors to forsake it all. He seeks and strives for a 
complete deliverance. 

In the Scriptures, repentance is represented as absolutely 
necessary in order to forgiveness. We must repent, or forgive- 
ness is impossible. But why is repentance necessary? 

Not because of any insufficiency in the atonement. There is 
no insufficiency in the atonement. And if there was, repent- 
ance could not remedy it; since repentance can do nothing 
towards making amends for past sins. 

Nor is repentance necessary in order to forgiveness, on 
account of an inherent, inseparable connection between the one 
and the other. Some have said, that as soon as the sinner 
repents, he is of course forgiven; it cannot be otherwise; the 
two things, if not the same, are inseparably connected. But 
this view is obviously unscriptural and absurd. Forgiveness is 
an act of God's free grace, — following repentance, because God 
has been mercifully pleased to promise it, and not because of 
any inherent connection between the two. God is under no 
obligations, in point of justice, to forgive even the penitent sin- 
ner. He may punish him after repentance, and yet be just. ■ 
The covenant, in which pardon is secured to the penitent, is 
altogether a covenant of grace. But, — 

1. Repentance is necessary in orjder to pardon, since it is fit- 
ting and proper that God should, on the ground of the atone- 
ment, forgive penitent sinners, and them only. When sinners 
begin to be truly sorry for their sins, and to abase and- abhor 
themselves on account of them; when they acknowledge the 
justice of God in their condemnation, and are willing to come 
down and beg for mercy, — a full expiation having being made 
in the blood of Christ, — God may consistently and properly 
bestow pardon upon them, if he pleases. But suppose, instead 
of repenting, that the sinner persists and justifies himself in 
wickedness ; suppose the language of his heart to God is, "We 
will not have thee to reign over us ; depart from us, for we 
desire not the knowledge of thy ways " ; — can God now con- 
sistently forgive him ? Would not a pardon bestowed under 
such circumstances be infinitely degrading to the Deity, and 
justly expose him to the scorn and contempt of the universe ? 






476 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

2. Kepentance is necessary in order to forgiveness, since none 
but penitent sinners will accept the forgiveness which God 
offers. The language of impenitence is, "I am not criminal, — 
at least, not so criminal as God pretends. He would make me 
unspeakably guilty, and deserving of eternal punishment ; but I 
do not feel that this is the case. I cannot acknowledge such 
guilt as this, and of couse I cannot accept a pardon for it." 
Such being the virtual language of the impenitent soul, it is 
easy to see why God cannot consistently bestow on him a par- 
don. He would not accept it on the terms of the gospel, even 
if the gift was made. 

3. If God should pardon impenitent sinners, their pardon 
would do them no good. If the penalty of the law were remit- 
ted up to the present time, they would immediately sin, and 
incur it again. And if their sentence were remitted finally, and 
they taken to heaven, heaven would be no place of happiness to 
them. They would prefer to escape, and hide themselves in the 
bottomless pit, rather than dwell in the holy atmosphere of 
heaven, so near to the throne of God. 

We see, then, that repentance, as a condition of pardon, is 
not an arbitrary one. It is required for the best and most 
obvious reasons. God could not save us in our sins, for this 
would be no salvation ; an(,l he only requires us to repent of 
them, and turn from them, in order to be saved. Surely, then, 
God has not hedged up the way of life with needless and arbi- 
trary conditions. The terms of pardon proposed in the gospel 
are as low and as easy as they could possibly be made. 

With a single collateral inquiry, I close. The question is 
often asked, Which is first in order, repentance or regeneration? 
Some religionists tell us that repentance is first ; that the sinner 
is not unfrequently a penitent, several days before regeneration 
is accomplished. Others reverse this order, and insist that 
regeneration is first. The sinner must be regenerated before he 
can repent or perform any other spiritual duty. 

Eegeneration , we have said in a previous Lecture, is the com- 
mencement of holy exercises or affections in the sinner's heart. 
Jt is the waking up, the putting forth, of such affections for the 



EEPE^TANCE. 477 

first time. Of course no holy affection, of any kind, can have 
existed in that heart before. 

But true, evangelical repentance is a holy affection, and, 
consequently, cannot precede regeneration. Else, regeneration 
is not what we have defined it to be, — the commencement of 
holiness in the sinner's heart. 

Shall we say, then, that regeneration precedes repentance? 
To this we answer, that it may, or may not. If repentance is 
the first holy affection which the Spirit of God wakes up in the 
sinner's heart ; if holiness in the heart begins with this (as 
sometimes it does), then regeneration and repentance are 
identical. They are the same thing. Spiritual life commences, 
in this case, in an exercise of true repentance. 

But if some other holy affection is first put forth, as love, 
submission, gratitude, faith,— and, repentance comes in subse- 
quent to these exercises, or to either of them, — then repentance 
follows regeneration. There is holiness in the heart, and the 
regeneration takes place before that particular form of holiness 
which we call repentance is exercised. There is, we think, no 
invariable order of gracious affections in the renewed heart. 
The particular form of holy affection which first appears will be 
according to the particular object or motive which is at the time 
presented. But the first holy affection, whatever the form, 
constitutes regeneration, 'and brings the subject of it into the 
covenant of grace. 



478 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUEB XLIY. 

FAITH IN CHRIST. 

Faith in Christ, like repentance, is an indispensable condi- 
tion of the covenant of grace. "He that believe th and is bap- 
tized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned" 
(Mark xvi. 16). 

My object in this Lecture will be, — 
I. To describe true faith in Christ. And, 

II. To show why it is necessary in order to salvation. 

True faith in Christ includes all those exercises and affections 
of which the believer is the subject in respect to Christ. If we 
can ascertain what these are, we may determine what exercises 
are included under the general idea of faith. 

First, then, the Christian believes, intellectually, all that the 
Scriptures teach respecting Christ. He believes that Christ 
was both divine and human, God and man ; that he came into 
the world in the manner, and on the errand, ascribed to him in 
the Scriptures ; that he here did, and said, and suffered, all 
that is related of him ; that by suffering and dying in the sin- 
ner's stead he made a full atonement for sin ; that he rose from 
the dead, and ascended into the heavens, where he is Head over 
all things to his church, and ever liveth to make intercession for 
his people ; and that he will come again to judge the world at 
the last day. All these great truths, together with the other 
connected facts in relation to Christ, the Christian believes. 
He holds them, and rests upon them, as unquestionably true. 

But this full intellectual assent to the entire doctrine of Christ 
is not alone sufficient to constitute saving faith. There is such 
a thing as "holding the truth in unrighteousness." I remark, 
therefore, secondly, that the true Christian believes, not only 



FAITH IN T CHEIST. 479 

with his understanding, but his heart. He not only believes in 
Christ, but he loves him. He loves all that he knows concern- 
ing him. He loves his holy and benevolent character. He 
loves his winning, searching truths. He cordially approves of 
all his offices and works. Indeed, the whole doctrine of Christ 
— all that the Christian believes respecting him — he admires 
and loves. 

Nor is this all. I remark, thirdly, the Christian commits his 
lost soul to Christ, and trusts in him alone for salvation. He 
sees himself to be an unworthy, guilty sinner. He sees him- 
self to be a lost sinner, holden for a debt which he can never 
pay, and exposed to an awful, eternal punishment, from which 
he has no means of escape. He sees that the provided Saviour 
is entirely worthy of his confidence ; is altogether such a 
Saviour as he needs ; and with the full consent of his heart he 
commits his lost soul to his hands. Seeing no other way of 
salvation, and desiring no other, he trusts all his interests to 
Christ. He most cordially and affectionately embraces Christ, 
and builds upon him all his hopes. 

This act of committing the soul to Christ may be regarded as 
strictly the act of faith. It is the act which brings the soul into 
the embrace of Christ, and makes it one with him for time and 
eternity. 

Fourth : the Christian, having committed his soul to Christ, 
and become one with him, will now endeavor to obey and follow 
him. He desires to be like him. He knows that he is indebted 
to Christ for all that he has, and he most heartily consecrates all 
to his glory. He cordially receives Christ, in all his revealed 
offices and works, as prophet, priest, and king ; and while he 
loves his instructions, and confides in his blood, he wishes to 
copy his example, and to obey his laws. He feels constrained 
to live no longer unto himself, but to him who died for him, 
and rose again. 

Such, then, in few words, is tiuie faith in Christ, — a firm 
belief in all that the Scriptures teach concerning him ; a love of 
his character and work ; an unreserved reliance on him for sal- 
vation, and a fixed, resolution to live to his glory. Or, to sim- 
plify the matter still more, true faith in Christ is to believe in 



480 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

him, and to conform the character to such belief. It is to 
believe in him, and to feel, live, and act, as though we did 
believe ; or, which is the same, to show our faith by our works. 

If this be true, then we see how true faith in Christ differs 
from every form of false faith. We have said that true faith in 
Christ receives the whole doctrine of Christ, — all that the 
Scriptures reveal concerning him. Now, there is a form of 
false faith which fails to do this. It rejects large masses of 
essential truth. It holds error, in the place of truth. It frit- 
ters down the religion of Christ, till it becomes little more than 
the religion of nature. 

We have said that the true believer not only receives the 
truth intellectually, but he loves it. He embraces it in his 
heart. But there is a second form of false faith which fails to do 
this. It may be sound intellectually, but it is merely intellectual. 
The heart does not go with it. It is a cold, formal, speculative 
orthodoxy ; a "holding of the truth is unrighteousness." 

We have said that the true believer commits his lost soul to 
Christ, and trusts in him alone for salvation. Now, there is a 
form of false faith the opposite of this. It may be sound and 
orthodox ; it may be accompanied by a zealous observance of 
forms, or by a virtuous life. But these forms, these good 
works, are trusted to, as the foundation of hope. The'atone- 
ment of Christ is ignored, or set aside, and personal merits, 
acquired in one way or another, are resorted to as the ground 
of salvation. 

We have said that the real Christian not only trusts in Christ, 
but he endeavors to obey him, to follow him, to be like him. 
In opposition to this, we have yet another form of false faith. 
It is a loose, Antinomian faith. It is like that described by. the 
Apostle James — inoperative, worthless, dead, being alone. 

Another form of false faith, which ought to be noticed, is a 
selfish faith, which issues in a selfish, spurious religion. There 
are persons who believe that Christ loved them, and died for 
them ; and they make their supposed personal interest in Christ 
the ground of all their regard for him. They love him, not 
because he is intrinsically lovely, but because they think that 
he loves them, and will certainly save them. It needs no words . 



FAITH IN CHRIST. 481 

V 

to show that such a faith and such a religion are very likely to 
be selfish. 

In showing the necessity of faith in order to salvation, I shall 
pursue the same course of remark as in my last Lecture. Faith 
is not necessary to salvation, because of any deficiency in the 
atonement, or because there is any merit in faith, or because 
salvation is inherently, inseparably connected with it. There is 
no such inherent connection between the two. To the true 
believer salvation is, indeed, certain ; but certain, because God 
has graciously promised it, and not because it is the necessary 
result of faith. Salvation, to the believer, is the free gift of 
God. But faith is necessary to salvation, — 

1. Because unbelief is sin. Hence, to save a person in unbe- 
lief would be to save him in his sins ; which is absurd and 
impossible. 

2. Faith is made a condition of salvation because, to save a 
person without it (even if it were possible) would be altogether 
unsuitable and wrong. How can a person be saved by Christ 
who rejects Christ ; who feels in no need of him, and no affec- 
tion for him, and will not come to him, or trust in him, for 
salvation ? 

3. Faith is made a condition of salvation, because by this 
act, as we have seen, the soul is united' to Christ, and, in affec- 
tion, object and interest, becomes one tuith him. It is in the 
act of faith that the soul embraces Christ, and, as an immediate 
consequence, is embraced by him in covenant faithfulness and 
love. It is by faith that this union between Christ and the 
believer is formed. It can be formed in no other way. 

TTe see, therefore, that there are the best reasons why faith 
has been made one of the conditions of the covenant of grace. 
This, as was observed in regard to repentance, is no arbitrary 
condition. It is not one which God has imposed needlessly, and 
with a view to embarrass us in the way to heaven, but one most 
reasonable and indispensable. AYe must believe, in order to be 
saved, because, in the very nature of things, there can be no 
salvation for us in any other way. 

And this is an impression which ministers, in preaching, 
should be careful to make. Impenitent sinners are very liable 

61 



482 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

f 

to misapprehension here. They might hope to be saved, they 
think, if these terms of salvation were only out of the way. But 
faith and repentance lie directly across their path, and how to 
remove them, or get over them, they cannot tell. Now, such 
persons should be made to see and understand, that these terms 
of salvation are not needless impositions. So far from this, they 
are of indispensable necessity. And they are as low and as 
easy as they can possibly be made. God could not save men in 
their sins ; and he only requires that they turn from them, in 
order to be saved. God could not save sinners by Christ, while 
they slighted and rejected him ; and he only requires that they 
embrace him, and put their trust in him, in order to make their 
salvation sure. Certainly, if men will not be saved on terms 
such as these, they cannot, should not, be saved at all. 

It will be seen, from what has been said, that faith in Christ, 
like repentance, is a complex mental affection, involving an ex- 
ercise of the understanding, the sensibilities, and the will. The 
understanding consents to the whole doctrine of Christ, the 
feelings are interested in it, while the will fixes upon Christ, 
chooses him, embraces him, trusts in him, and makes him the 
portion of the soul. 

But, notwithstanding the complex nature of faith, it may be 
so exhibited, so simplified, as to become a very plain subject. 
It has been so long shrouded in theological mystery, that many 
people are perplexed with it, and know not how to understand 
it. But when simply and properly stated, it is very plain. 
What plainer than to believe the truth of the gospel message, 
and to feel, live, and act as though we did believe? Yet this is 
faith. It is all the faith, and involves all the religion, that we 
need. 

I may remark, in closing, that faith in God and faith in Christ 
are of the same general nature, differing only in respect to their 
objects. Faith in God implies that we believe God, — believe 
in his existence, believe his word, his truth, his promises, his 
threatenings, his revelations, all that he says, or that is said of 
him, in the Scriptures. It also implies that we feel, live, and 
act as though we did believe these things ; or that we show our 
faith by our works. Such is faith in God. Such was the faith of 



FAITH IN CHRIST. 483 

Noah, of Abraham, of Moses, of Samuel, and of all those 
worthies, whose faith is celebrated in the eleventh chapter of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. Their faith did not fix directly 
upon Christ, but upon some promise or revelation of God. And 
yet, that it was genuine and saving is evident from the fact that 
it was imputed to them for righteousness, or, in other words, 
was the means of their justification. (See Kom. iv. 22.) 

Faith in Christ, as described above, is to believe what the 
Scriptures tell us respecting Christ, and to feel and live as 
though we did believe it. And this, obviously, is the same, 
except in regard to its particular object, as faith in God. The 
faith of Abraham was of the same nature precisely as that of 
Paul, and the same that is required of Christians now. Abra- 
ham believed the revelations which were made to him, and 
acted accordingly. And if we believe the revelations which 
God has made to us of his Son, and live conformably to them, 
we shall soon be with Abraham and Paul in the same heaven, 
and shall unite with them in singing the same song of redeeming 
mercy forever. 



484 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUEE XLY. 

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 

Justification is a forensic term, borrowed from the usages 
of courts. A person is charged with some offence or crime, is 
arraigned for it, and put upon trial. But in the progress of the 
trial, it appears that he is not guilty. Of course, he is acquitted, 
or, which is the same, justified. This is legal justification. 

There are two ways in which a person maybe legally justified. 
In the first place, there may be no evidence that he has com- 
mitted the crime charged upon him. Or, secondly, it may be 
made to appear that though he did perform the act, he did it 
under circumstances which amount to a justification. Thus a 
person accused of manslaughter may be able to show that he 
committed the act unintentionally, or in self-defence. 

But in neither of these ways, nor in any other, can sinners be 
legally justified before God. The fact charged upon them is 
sin, — transgression of the divine law ; and it is absolutely 
certain that the charge is true. God knows it is true, and they 
know it is true. 

Nor can they ever make it appear that they sinned under cir- 
cumstances which amount to a justification, or which furnish 
them with a good excuse. If they could charge their sin upon 
Adam, this might be a sufficient excuse. Or if they could 
charge it upon their very nature, — the constitution of soul with 
which they were born, — this might be a sufficient excuse. Or 
if they could charge it upon the purposes or the providence ot 
God, this might be a sufficient excuse. Or if they could plead 
that they had sinned from a strict natural necessity, or because 
they had no ability of any kind to do otherwise, this might be 
a sufficient excuse. But neither of these self-justifying pleas 



JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 485 

has any foundation in truth. Neither of them can be sustained 
a moment at the bar of conscience, or of God. Every sinner 
knows that his sins are his own. They have been committed by 
himself. They have been committed, not of necessity, but of 
inclination, when he had the power, and lacked only the will, to 
do differently. In short, no good excuse whatever*can be made 
for sin ; for the moment that an action admits of a good excuse, 
it ceases to be sin, and the commission of it confers no guilt. 
It is certain, therefore, that in no way can sinners be legally 
justified before God. 

But though God cannot justify sinners legally, he may do it 
evangelically. His law being honored, his justice satisfied, and 
all the ends of government secured, in the atonement of Christ ; 
although sinners are guilty, God may, if he pleases, and on 
such terms as he pleases, consent to treat them as though they 
were not. Though they have incurred the penalty of the law, 
and deserve, to die, God may, in sovereign mercy, remit the 
penalty, and treat them, as though they had not sinned. In 
this sense, God may justify sinners, and this is what is termed 
evangelical justification. It is God's consenting, on the ground 
of the atonement, and on condition of faith in Christ, to treat 
the sinner as though he had not sinned. 

Justification includes the forgiveness of sins ; and it has been 
made a question whether, in addition to this, it implies a resto- 
ration of the justified soul to the forfeited favor and blessing of 
God. Undoubtedly, it does imply such restoration ; but the 
question remains, whether forgiveness, in the full sense of the 
term, does not imply the same. 

We discussed this question in our Lectures on the Atonement, 
and need not go largely into it here. Forgiveness is a remis- 
sion of the penalty of the divine law. And now, what is the- 
penalty of the law ? Yery much depends on the answer to this 
question. The penalty of the law, it was remaked in the Lec- 
tures referred to, is both privative and positive. It consists in 
the loss of heaven and in the pains of hell ; in a forfeiture of 
the divine favor and blessing, and in the endurance of all those 
miseries which go to constitute eternal death. Such is the 
penalty of the divine law; and pardon, forgiveness, in the full 



486 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

sense of the terms, is the remission of all this. It removes our 
liability to suffer the positive part of the penalty, which is eter- 
nal death. It removes also the privative part, and restores our 
lost title to the divine favor and blessedness. Such, in its 
effect, is full forgiveness ; and such, precisely, is evangelical 
justification. ' Accordingly we find, that what is called forgive- 
ness, in the Old Testament, is frequently called justification in 
the New. And the Apostle Paul, in repeated instances, speaks 
of forgiveness and justification as the same. 1 

I have said already, that the ground of our justification before 
God is not our own obedience, moral or ceremonial; not any- 
thing which we can do or suffer, or which can be done for us 
by any created being ; but solely the atonement of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. " Being justified by his blood, we shall be saved 
from wrath through him" (Rom. v. 9). It follows, that those 
persons who reject the atonement will, of course, reject the 
doctrine of justification by faith. And not only so, the ideas 
which persons entertain of the atonement will necessarily mod- 
ify, to some extent, their views of justification. For example, 
those persons, who hold that Christ's atonement consisted partly 
in his active obedience or holiness, will be likely to make justi- 
fication to consist partly in the imputation of Christ's obedience. 

We have shown in a previous Lecture, that although the 
active obedience of Christ was indispensably connected with the 
work of atonement, yet it really constituted no part of it. His 
atonement consisted entirely in his sufferings and death. Hence 
the atonement provides no active obedience to be imputed in 
justification. And if it were not so ; if the obedience of Christ 
could be drawn in here to help out the matter of justification, 
there are serious objections to what has been called the imputa- 
tion of it. 

If it be meant by this phraseology that the obedience of 
Christ is literally put over to the believer in justification, so as 
to become his ; I object, in the first place, that moral character 
is not transferable. It is strictly personal. The obedience, the 

1 See Acts xiii. 38 ; Rom. iii. 23 and iv. 6. These passages are quoted and remarked 
upon in my Lectures on the Atonement. 



JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 487 

personal holiness of Christ, can never become the obedience of 
another. The thing is impossible. 

But if Christ's obedience could be put over to the believer, so 
as to become his, I might object, secondly, that on this ground 
all believers must be equally holy, and perfectly holy, — as holy 
as the Saviour; since, by the supposition, each and all of them 
are put in possession of the Saviour's holiness. 

But some will say that it is not the proper obedience of 
Christ which is put over to the believer in justification, but the 
legal merit, the desert of his obedience. To this we object, — 

1. That the desert of moral character, like character itself, is 
strictly personal. It cannot be passed over from one to another. 
We may suffer in consequence of the sins of others, but not 
because the ill-desert of their sins is so made over to us as to 
become ours. We may receive blessings in consequence of the 
piety, the holiness of others, but never because we have come 
in possession of the legal merit or desert of their holiness. 
But,— 

2. Suppose the legal merit of Christ's obedience could be so 
made over to believers as to become theirs ; it would follow 
from this statement that the believer merits heaven, as really as 
Christ does. He goes there, not of grace, but on the ground of 
his imputed merits. : 

3. It would follow, also, on this ground, that the rewards of 
heaven ought to be equal to all. They are represented in the 
Scriptures as being unequal. The saints in heaven differ, in 
this respect, as one star cliffereth from another star in glory. 
Each is rewarded according to his works. But if the rewards 
of heaven are grounded entirely on the merits of Christ's obe- 
dience, so put over to the believer as to become his, then, as 
these merits are equal to all, it w^ould seem that the rewards of 
all must be equal. 

Such are some of the objections to the idea of justification by 
the imputed obedience of Christ, or the imputed merits of his 
obedience. It is a comfort to know that this idea has come to 
us, not from the Bible, but the schools. The Bible has nothing 
to say of the active obedience of Christ, in connection with 
justification. It refers, indeed, to the righteousnesss of Christ ; 



488 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

but righteousness and obedience are words of different import, 
both in the original Scriptures and in our own version. Christ 
is called by the prophets, "Jehovah our righteousness"; but 
never Jehovah our obedience. As the obedience of Christ 
constitutes no part of his atonement, but was only an essential 
preparation for it, so it furnishes no part of the ground of the 
sinner's justification. " Being justified by his blood, we shall be 
saved from wrath through him" (Rom. v. 9). "In whom we 
have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, 
according to the riches of his grace " (Eph. i. 7) . 

As the atonement of Christ is the sole ground of the sinner's 
justification, so faith in him is the cardinal condition of it. " He 
that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life" (John iii. 36). 
" Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our 
Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. v. 3). The reasons why faith is 
made the indispensable condition of salvation were briefly stated 
in my last Lecture, and need not be repeated here. 

There is an apparent contradiction between the Apostles Paul 
and James, in regard to the conditions of justification ; but it 
will appear, on examination, that this is merely apparent. Paul 
insists that sinners are "justified by faith, without the deeds of 
the law " ; while James asserts that they " are justified by works, 
and not by faith only" (Rom. ii. 28 ; Ja\nes ii. 24). 

Paul is here reasoning against the Judaizing teachers, who 
substituted works, moral and ceremonial, in place of the blood 
of Christ, as a ground of justification. Hence, he was led to 
say that we are justified by faith, without works, i. e., without 
their going to constitute any part of the ground of our justifica- 
tion. But James was reasoning against Antinomians, who 
insisted that where there was faith, good works were unneces- 
sary. This led him to say that such a faith was dead and worth- 
less, and could never be accepted as the condition of salvation. 
Against a faith such as this, Paul would have insisted as strenu- 
ously as James ; while against works, in the sense that Paul 
abjured them, James would have insisted as strenuously as 
Paul. It is only necessary to understand the' two apostles, — 
to consider the circumstances under which they wrote, and the 
different errors at which they aimed, in order to see that there 
is no real discrepancy between them. 



JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 489 

It has been made a question, whether believers are justified 
absolutely, or conditionally, in the present life ; whether, on 
believing, their salvation is made sure to them, without any 
further conditions on their part ; or whether it is still suspended 
on conditions to be performed. On this question, we submit 
the following remarks : — 

• 1. In the Scriptures, the full and final justification of behev- 
ers is suspended on the condition of their perseverance. "If 
any man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is 
withered" (John xv. 6). "If any man draw back, my soul 
shall have no pleasure in him" (Heb. x. 38). "He that 
endureth to the end, the same shall be saved" (Matt. x. 22). 
" Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of 
life " (Rev. ii. 10) . Indeed, if there were no conditions to be 
fulfilled by the believer ; if his justification were, in the strict- 
est sense, absolute; if his salvation were made sure to him, 
independent of all conditions, at the moment of his conversion ; 
he could hardly be said to be any longer on probation. His 
state of trial would terminate as soon as he became a believer. 
But — 

2. Although the full and final justification of the believer is 
suspended on the condition of his perseverance, there are prom- 
ises which make it certain that he will persevere. These prom- 
ises are very numerous, and will be given in the following 
Lecture. Hence, although these are conditions to be fulfilled, 
there is no uncertainty as to the issue. " He that belie veth 
and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark xvi. 16). " Whom he 
justified, them he also glorified" (Eom. viii. 30). 

It may be inquired, further, whether the believer is com- 
pletely justified in the present life ; or whether his full and com- 
plete justification is to be realized only in the heavenly state. 
The proper answer to this question depends on the manner in 
which it is to be understood. The believer is not delivered from 
all the bitter consequences of sin in the present life. These 
will continue to follow him, and press upon him, till he has 
passed through the gate of death, and entered heaven. Nor is 
he yet fully, completely restored to the divine favor and bless- 
ing. In these respects, therefore, it can hardly be said that he 

62 



490 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

is fully justified. It is certaiu that he is not fully delivered and 
restored. 

But with reference to his liability to suffer the proper penalty 
of the law, to be banished heaven, and to perish forever ; the 
believer does seem to be completely justified in the present life. 
He is no longer exposed to suffer this dreadful penalty. At 
least, he is saved from it on condition of perseverance ; and he 
has promise upon promise to encourage and assure him that he 
shall persevere. 

The doctrine of justification by faith alone has been a dis- 
puted one, at different periods of the church's history. It was 
earnestly contested in the days of Paul. The Judaizing teach- 
ers insisted upon circumcision and the works of the law, as a 
matter of necessity in order to salvation. " Ye must be cir- 
cumcised, and keep the law of Moses, or ye cannot be saved." 
But in this they interfered with the great doctrine of atonement , 
and poured contempt on the blood of Christ. It was this 
which roused the spirit of Paul, and fed him to insist, in the 
strongest terms, on justification by faith alone. 

This doctrine was again contested in the days of Luther. 
The Romanists had substituted the merits of saints, the inter- 
cession of the Virgin, their masses, indulgences, and supersti- 
tious rites, in place of the blood of Christ, as the foundation of 
the sinner's hope. But the strong hand of Luther swept all 
this rubbish away, and brought back the great doctrine of jus- 
tification to the standard of Paul. 

This doctrine is rejected now by all those religionists who 
deny the kindred doctrine of atonement by the blood of Christ, 
and are resting upon their own works, moral or ceremonial, as 
the foundation of their hope. 

I hardly need say, that the doctrine of justification by faith 
is one of vital, essential importance. It contains within itself 
the very marrow of the gospel. It is, what Luther described 
it, doctrina stantis vel cadentis ecclesioe. " Other foundation 
can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ ; " and 
if men turn away from this, and refuse to build upon it as the 
foundation of their hopes, they may build where else they 
please ; it is all sand. 



PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 491 



LECTURE XLYI. 

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 

In discussing the doctrine of perseverance, I propose, — 
I. To explain it. 
II. To prove it. And, 

III. To answer some of the more common objections which 
are urged against it. 

This doctrine does not imply that believers have received 
anything in regeneration which they cannot lose, or that they 
are so kept that it is naturally impossible for them to fall away 
and perish. No person has any more religion than he has in 
exercise ; and if Christians persevere in holiness, they must do 
it actively and freely. 

Nor does the doctrine before us imply that believers, in this 
world, are kept free from sin. They may and they do fall into 
sin ; but they rise again. They never so relapse as not to be 
restored, on repentance, to the divine favor and blessing. 

The certainty that the believer will be restored does not, 
however, rest in himself. It does not lie in this, that he has 
something good within him which he cannot lose, or that his 
holy purposes are so strong that they cannot be broken, or that 
he has attained to such a degree of perfection that he cannot 
fall away. The certainty that the believer will so persevere as 
not finally to perish rests entirely on the revealed purpose and 
promise of God. If God has not made it certain, by promise, 
that his people shall not fall finally away, then they have no 
security, and no reasonable ground of hope. 

In this case, however, as in every other of a like nature, the 
divine purpose and promise are entirely consistent with human 
freedom, and even go to secure it. While it is certain, from 



492 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

the promise of God, that true believers shall be kept, and while 
they are kept by the power of Gocl, through faith, unto salva- 
tion, they go on in their Christian course freely, voluntarily, 
and under the influence of appropriate motives. 

It will be seen that, in this view, it is just as pertinent, and 
as necessary, to use motives with Christians to induce them to 
persevere, as though God had given them no promise on the 
subject. Indeed, the promises he has given were furnished 
chiefly for this end, that they might operate as motives, as 
encouragements, to his toiling, suffering people, to continue 
faithful unto death. For the same purpose the Scriptures em- 
ploy various other motives, addressed to the consciences and 
hearts of Christians. They are exhorted and commanded to be 
steadfast in the faith, and are told plainly and repeatedly that 
if they do fall away, their righteousness shall not save them, 
but they shall perish in their sins. Such hypothetical repre- 
sentations prove the possibility of the Christian's falling finally 
away ; they prove the danger of it, so far as his own strength is 
concerned ; they prove that he has need of powerful motives to 
keep him steadfast to the end. But they come short of proving 
that any real Christian ever did so fall into sin, and persist in 
it, as finally to perish. The declaration of Paul to the Gala- 
tians, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel 
unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed," is far 
from proving that an angel from heaven ever did this thing, or 
ever will. 

The proof that, in the sense explained, true believers in Christ 
shall persevere to the end, is conclusive and abundant. This is 
proved, — 

1. From the doctrine of election. True believers are repre- 
sented as having been " chosen in Christ before the foundation 
of the world." And chosen to what? Not that they should 
have some good impulses and impressions, and then fall away 
and perish; but they were "chosen unto salvation, through 
sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth" (2 Thess. 
ii. 13). If, therefore, the purpose of God according to election 
shall stand, if the divine decree cannot be frustrated, it was 



PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 493 

certain in eternity, when believers were elected, that they 
should persevere and finally be saved. 

If it be said, in reply to this, that perhaps some are effectu- 
ally called, or regenerated, who never were elected, I have only 
to answer, that Paul taught a different doctrine. With him, the 
effectually called and the predestinated are identical : " Whom 
he did predestinate, them he also called." We never read of 
his calling effectually any others. Paul describes all true 
believers (not a part of them) as having been " chosen in Christ 
before the foundation of the world " (Eph. i. 4) . 

2. The perseverance of saints is secured in the eternal cov- 
enant of redemption. In this covenant all true believers were 
given to Christ, as the purchase of his blood, and the travail of 
his soul. But our Saviour says expressly : "All that the. Father 
giveth me shall come to me ; and him that cometh to me I will 
in no wise cast out" (John vi. 37). 

3. The perseverance of the saints is involved, not only in the 
covenant of redemption, but in the covenant. of grace. The 
covenant of grace is that proposed in the gospel, into which the 
believer enters when he first commits his soul to Christ. The 
grand condition of this covenant is faith, and its great promise 
is salvation. " He that believe th on the Lord Jesus Christ shall 
be saved." It is obvious, from the very terms of it, that such 
a covenant secures the final perseverance and salvation of all 
true believers. 

4. The perseverance of the saints may be inferred from the 
fact of their regeneration. Not, as I have said, because they 
receive that in regeneration which it is naturally impossible for 
them to lose, but because it is God's invariable method, when 
he commences a great and good work, to carry it on to its com- 
pletion. He began to create the world, and he finished it. He 
began to create human beings, and he did not leave them half 
formed, but finished what he had undertaken. Our Saviour 
undertook the painful work of making atonement for sin ; and 
when he expired on the cross it was finished. So when God 
really commences the work of salvation in any soul (and he 
does commence it in regeneration) , we may expect that he will 
complete it. 



494 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

" The work that wisdom undertakes, 
Eternal mercy ne'er forsakes." 

5. The perseverance of saints is involved in the doctrine of 
assurance. Many of those holy men, whose names are recorded 
in the Scriptures, attained, in this life, to an assurance of salva- 
tion. This did Job. "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and 
that he shall stand, at the latter day, upon the earth. And 
though after my skin worms shall destroy this body, yet in my 
flesh I shall see God ; whom I shall see for myself, and not 
another" 1 (Job xix. 25-27). The Psalmist had an assurance 
of his final salvation. "Thou wilt guide me with thy counsel, 
and afterward receive me to glory" (Ps. lxxiii. 24). The 
Apostle Paul could say : "I know in whom I have believed, 
and am sure that he is able to keep what I have committed to 
him against that day." " Henceforth, there is laid up for me a 
crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, 
shall give me at that day" (2 Tim. i. 12 ; iv. 8). Paul further 
represents a state of assurance as attainable by all Christians, 
and exhorts his brethren to press onward and reach it. " We 
desire that every one of you do show the same diligence, to the 
full assurance of hope unto the end" (Heb. vi. 11). This doc- 
trine of assurance is obviously based on that of the saints' per- 
severance. On no other ground can the Christian — however 
high may be his state of religious exercise and enjoyment, or 
however long he may have continued in it — be sure that he shall 
endure to the end, and finally enter heaven. 

6. The perseverance of saints is established by numerous and 
various representations of Scripture. The following are some 
of the declarations of Scripture to this effect : " Whom he did 
foreknow he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image 
of his Son ; and whom he did predestinate, them he also called ; 
and whom he called, them he also justified ; and whom he justi- 
fied, them he also glorified" (Rom. vii. 30). "I am persuaded 
that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor 
powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor 
depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from 

1 For more reasons than I have now space to offer, I accept our common version of 
this important passage. 



PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 495 

the love of God which is in Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. viii. 
38). "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall 
never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. My 
Father, which gave them me, is greater than all, and none is 
able to pluck them out of my Father's hand " (John x. 27). 
?: Who are kept by the power of God, through faith, unto salva- 
tion" (IPet. i. 5). 

To the same effect are the following promises of Scripture : 
" Being confident of this very thing, that he who hath begun 
a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus 
Christ" (Phil. i. 6). "The water that I shall give him shall 
be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting life " 
(John iv. 14) . " Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall 
never die" (John xi. 26). 

Our Saviour informs us that " there is joy in heaven over 
one sinner that repenteth more than over ninety and nine just 
persons that need no repentance" (Luke xv. 7). But does 
not this presuppose the certainty that the repenting sinner will 
persevere and be saved? Would heavenly beings rejoice so 
much over the repentance of a sinner to-day, if they had no 
means of knowing that he would not relapse to-morrow, become 
worse than ever, and finally perish? 

The Apostle John assures us, that all those pretenders to 
religion who finally apostatize and perish, never were true 
Christians. "They went out from us, but they were not of 
us ; for if they had been of us, no doubt they would have con- 
tinued with us ; but they went out, that it might be made 
manifest that they were not all of us" (1 John ii. 19). This 
passage not only asserts the perseverance of all true Christians, 
but furnishes an answer to all the objections to this doctrine 
drawn from cases of alleged apostasy. If the cases referred to 
are not cases of real apostasy, but only of backsliding, from 
which the subjects are recovered, then they furnish no objec- 
tion to the doctrine before us. But if they are cases of real 
apostasy, in which the subjects die and perish, then they are 
in the class spoken of by John. "They went out from us, 



496 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

but they were not of us." They never were truly converted 
persons. 

Most of the objections, commonly urged against the perse- 
verance of the saints, are entirely obviated by the foregoing 
explanations and remarks. As this doctrine is sometimes 
stated, and as it is commonly understood by those who reject 
it, there are very serious objections to it, — objections which 
cannot be satisfactorily removed ; but not as stated and ex- 
plained above. 

It cannot be said that the doctrine is inconsistent with human 
freedom ; for it carries, on the face of it, that the saints do and 
must persevere freely. They must be free agents, or the 
doctrine cannot be true. 

Nor can it be said that the doctrine is inconsistent with the 
use of motives ; for it necessarily implies that there must be 
motives. How shall saints persevere actively, voluntarily, but 
under the influence of appropriate motives ? 

Nor is the doctrine at all inconsistent with those Scriptures 
which represent believers as liable to fall away, and as in actual 
danger of so doing; for those who hold the doctrine truly 
insist that saints are liable to fall ; that they are naturally 
able to fall ; that, in themselves, they are in danger of falling ; 
and that they have no security but in the gracious promise of 
God. 

The doctrine, as here explained, is clearly not of an immoral 
tendency. How can the certainty that believers will actively 
persevere in a course of obedience and holiness have a ten 7 
dency to make them unholy? How can the certainty that 
they shall be kept from allowed and habitual sin tend to plunge 
them into such sin? The self-deceiver and hypocrite may be 
left to abuse this doctrine to purposes of sin ; but they would 
soon discover themselves, and be unmasked. A real Christian, 
one who has the heart of a Christian, can do no such thing:. 
"How shall we, who are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" 
Such an one will be melted under a sense of the divine good- 
ness and grace, and will receive the promises of God as an 
encouragement to struggle on in the Christian conflict ; to fight 



PERSEVERANCE OE THE SAINTS. 497 

the good fight of faith ; and prepare for that rest which remains 
for the people of God. 

The case of King Saul is sometimes urged against the doctrine 
of saints' perseverance. It is insisted that he must have been a 
pious man when he came to the kingdom, since it is said, 
expressly, that "God gave him another heart" (1 Sam. x. 9). 
But is it certain that this other heart was a renewed heart, a 
holy heart? We think not. The expression merely implies 
that, as Saul had now been anointed king, God inspired him 
with new courage, and with other kingly qualities, and thus 
fitted him, in some degree, for the exalted station to which he 
was destined. 

There is a passage, in 2 Pet. ii. 22, which is sometimes 
adduced to show that Christians actually have fallen away. The 
apostle speaking of certain apostates from the truth, says : "It 
hath happened unto them according to the true proverb : The dog 
is turned to his vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her 
wallowing in the mire." But it may well be doubted, from the 
very comparisons used, whether these apostates were ever true 
Christians. Such Christians are never compared, by the sacred 
writers, to a healthy dog, or a washed sow. The language used 
rather indicates (what was undoubtedly true), that the persons 
referred to were never more than mere pretenders to religion, 
who went out from among the people of Gocl, because they were 
not of them. 

The doctrine we have considered is of high importance every 
way, but more especially as it constitutes one link in a chain of 
connected doctrines (usually called the doctrines of grace), 
which reaches from eternity to eternity, from the sovereign 
election of the believer, before the world began, to his final glo- 
rification in heaven. "For whom he did foreknow, he also did 
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son ; and whom 
he did predestinate, them he also called ; and whom he called, 
them he also justified ; and whom he justified, them he also glo- 
rified." Here at the end of the golden chain, hangs the perse- 
verance of the saints: "Whom he justified, them he also 

GLORIFIED." 

63 



498 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XL VII. 

CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 

*» 

I propose, in the following Lecture, — 
I. To describe Christfan perfection. And, 

II. To inquire whether any of our fallen race ever have 
been, or are likely to be, perfect, in the present life. 

Some pretenders to perfection speak of an imputed perfec- 
tion. They are perfect, not in their own righteousness, but in 
the imputed righteousness of Christ. By an act of faith, they 
become so united to Christ, that all his righteousness is put 
over to them, and becomes theirs. Consequently, they are per- 
fectly righteous, — as righteous as the Saviour. 

It is objection enough to this theory of perfection, that it 
involves an absolute impossibility. This supposed transfer of 
moral character, — this putting over of Christ's righteousness to 
the believer, so as to become his, is what never was, and never 
can be done. Moral character — as I have had occasion repeat- 
edly to observe in the course of these Lectures — is not trans- 
ferable property. It belongs to its possessor, and to him alone, 
and can never become the character of any other being. 

Some ground their claim to perfection on the fact that the 
moral law is no longer in force, especially in relation to the 
believer. The divine law, they say, has been annulled under 
the present dispensation, and, the milder and less rigorous 
requisitions of the gospel have taken its place. These milder 
requisitions the perfectionist, of which we now speak, professes 
to fulfil, and not the strict demands of law. 

To this theory it is sufficient to reply, that the moral law has 
not been superseded or annulled, but is in full force now 
throughout the universe. The Saviour came to vindicate and 



CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 499 

honor the law, but not to annul it. The dispensation of mercy- 
is based upon it, but does not supersede or abate one iota of its 
claims. Men may frame for themselves some other standard of 
character, if they please, and try to live up to it, and call this 
course of life perfection ; but the Bible knows nought of such 
perfection. It is of no value in the sight of God. 

Some persons profess to obey the law, as at present enacted, 
but not the Adamic law. They think themselves perfect, but 
not in the sense that Adam was before the fall. But I see no 
ground for the distinction here insisted on. The divine law, as 
to the spirit and substance of it, is immutable. It has under- 
gone no change, from the creation to the present hour. We are 
required to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, 
and our neighbor as ourselves ; and Adam, in his best estate, 
could do no more. 

Some claim to be perfect, but not sinlessly perfect. They 
refrain from known acts of sin, but do not profess to be free 
from mistakes and errors, and consequent transgressions. They 
may be chargeable with sins, but they are not known sins ; they 
are not conscious of them. 

Supposing these persons to be as good as they think they are, 
I see no propriety in calling them perfect, except as this term 
may be applied to all sincere, upright, conscientious Christians. 
Such Christians do not allow themselves in sin. They do not 
commit wilful transgressions. They may pass hours and days, 
and not be conscious of breaking any divine command. Still, 
they do not regard themselves as perfect, nor can the term per- 
fection, in its strict and proper sense, be applied to them. A 
perfection, not sinless, is properly no perfection. At least, it 
is not the perfection about which we now inquire. 

To be perfect, in the proper sense of the term, is perfectly to 
obey the divine law. It is to love God with all our heart, and 
soul, and mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves; 
and to exemplify this love, in all appropriate outward action. 
It is to serve God to the full extent of our capacities and powers. 
It is to glorify him, perfectly, in our bodies, and in our spirits, 
which are his. In short, it is to be, in our measure, like God. 



500 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

It is to bear his image perfectly. It is to be as truly sinless as 
the Supreme Being. 

But have any of our fallen race ever attained, on earth, to 
such perfection as this ? Or is it likely that they ever will ? 
We certainly ought to be perfect. We have all the requisite 
natural ability to be perfect. God requires us to be perfect, 
and has made ample provision, in his word, for the attainment 
of that perfection which he enjoins ; so that we are truly cul- 
pable, and without excuse, for all our moral imperfections. 
Still, the question of fact remains, — and it is entirely one of 
fact, — Is there any perfection in the present life, — such per- 
fection, we mean, as that above described? Has there ever 
been, or is there likely te be, any such perfection here? 

1. In proof of the affirmative of these questions, the testimony 
of individuals to their own perfection is sometimes adduced. 
But this is not satisfactory, because persons often judge of 
themselves too favorably. They think of themselves more 
highly than they ought to think. The young man in the gospel 
thought that he had kept all the commandments from his youth ; 
whereas, in their proper spiritual import, he had kept none of 
them. There were some in the church at Laodicea who thought 
that they were " rich, and increased in goods, and in need of 
nothing ;" but our Saviour told them that they were "wretched, 
and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" (Rev. iii. 17). 
In the year 1763 some hundreds, in the Methodist society in 
London, professed to be "perfected in love." But Mr. Wesley 
says that many among them " were manifestly wanting in the 
fruit." Some, he tells us, are "wanting in long-suffering and 
Christian resignation ; " " some are wanting in gentleness ;" 
some " in goodness ; " some " in fidelity and godly sincerity ; " 
some " in meekness and quietness of spirit ; " some " in tem- 
perance." 1 

2. The testimony of individuals to the perfection of others is 
also adduced; but this, too, is of little weight. We cannot 
look into the hearts one of another. Partial friends may dis- 
cover no blemishes in our characters, and may call us perfect, 

J See Christian Perfection, pp. 111-114. 



CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 501 

when God sees, and perhaps we ourselves may see, that we are 
chargeable with great imperfections. 

3. But we are exhorted and commanded to be perfect, — a 
proof that perfection is at least attainable, if not actually 
attained. We admit that perfection is metaphysically attain- 
able. We ought to be perfect. But are we so? God justly 
requires perfection of us. He can consistently require no less. 
But do we yield to these requirements ? Do we become perfect 
beings? This is the question, — a plain, simple question of 
fact. 

4. A like argument has been drawn from the means, the pro- 
visions of the gospel. These, it is said, and truly said, are 
ample and abundant, — sufficient to lead all those who avail 
themselves of them to the utmost of their ability, away from 
every sin. But who does avail himself of them to the utmost 
of his ability? Does any one? Here again, as before, we have 
a simple question of fact. 

5. An appeal is confidently made, in proof of perfection, to 
the promises of Scripture. God has promised, it is said, to 
deliver his children, or at least some of them, from all their sins, 
and to make them perfect in the present life. Bat after a care- 
ful examination of all the promises that have been adduced, I 
am not satisfied that this is the case. I cannot go into an ex- 
amination of these various promises here. They may all be 
classed, as their connection will show, under the four following 
heads : Those which relate to the state of the Jews, after their 
return from Babylon ; or to the state of the church, in general, 
under the gospel dispensation ; or to the state of the church 
and world during the millennium ; or to the heavenly state. 1 
The passages which fall into the two first of these classes cannot 
be regarded, by any one, as promising a sinless perfection. 
No one can think that the Jews were without sin, after their 
return from Babylon ; or that the same is true of the church, in 
general, under the gospel dispensation. The fourth class of 



1 As specimens of the first class, see Dent. xxx. 1-6; Jer. 1. 17-20; Ezek. xxxvi. 24-26 
and xxxvii. 23. Of the second class, Jer. xxxi. 31-34; Heb. viii. 6-13. Of the* third 
class, Is. xi. 6-9; Zech. xiv. 20 ; Rev. xx. 4. Of the fourth class, Matt. i. 21 ; Ps. cxxx. 
8 : 1 Thess. v. 24. 



502 , CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

passages, — those which may be understood as relating to the 
heavenly state, — without doubt, promise a sinless perfection ; 
but then that is not in the present world. The only promises, 
therefore, about which there can be any reasonable doubt, are 
those falling into the third class, — relating to the millennium. 
These are replete with the boldest imagery, and are expressed 
in the strong and glowing language of the prophets. They 
indicate that the coming day of the church's prosperity will be 
one of pre-eminent, but not (as it seems to me) of perfect 
holiness. There will be wickedness on the earth, but it will be 
overcome, put down, restrained. There will be wolves, and 
leopards, and lions, and bears, and asps, and cockatrices ; but 
they will be comparatively harmless. They will have lost their 
power to waste and destroy the church. (See Is. xi. 6-9.) Men 
will be born in sin, in the millennium, as they now are ; but 
they will be early and generally converted. They will possess 
great attainments in knowledge and holiness, so that the spirit 
of the martyrs may be said to be revived in the earth (Rev. 
xx. 4). But even the martyrs were not without their imperfec- 
tions. In short, this world, during the millennium, will still be 
earth, and not heaven ; a state of imperfection and trial, and 
not one of confirmed and unspotted holiness. On any other 
supposition, how are we to account for the great and terrible 
defection which is to take place at the close of the millennium, 
when the nations are to be gathered together, in opposition to 
the church, in number as the sand of the sea? (Rev. xx. 8.) 

6. Not only the promises of Scripture, but its declarations, 
have been adduced, in proof of perfection in the present life. 
But a slight attention to these passages will show that they fail 
of establishing the point in question. Some of them merely 
prove that Christians should be perfect; not that they are so. 
(See 1 John ii. 1 ; 2 Cor. v. 15 ; Tit. ii. 11, 12.) Other Scrip- 
tures, if they prove anything, prove too much. They are spoken 
with reference to all true Christians, and as much prove that all 
are perfect, as that any are. (See Rom. viii. 4 ; 1 Pet. ii. 24 ; 
1 John iv. 16, 17.) A single passage has been adduced, in which 
Paul is thought to speak of himself and certain of his brethren, 
as perfect. "Let us, therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus 



CHEISTIAN PEKFECTION. 503 

minded" (Phil. iii. 15). But that a sinless perfection is not 
here intended, is evident from the connection in which the pas- 
sage stands. It directly follows a sentence, in which the apostle 
expressly disclaims such perfection. "Not as though I had 
already attained, either were already perfect, but I follow after. 
. I press toward the mark for the prize of the high call- 
ing of God in Christ Jesus." Other declarations of Scripture 
have been quoted, whose application may not be limited to the 
present life. They may, and probably do, refer ultimately to 
the heavenly state, where the children of God will be entirely 
and forever free from sin. (See Tit. ii. 14; Eph. iv. 11-14, 
and v. 25-27.) 

7. But it is said that we often hear inspired men praying for 
perfection in the present life, — for their own perfection and 
that of others. And do we not often hear them praying for 
other things, — praying in faith, and receiving answers, — when 
the precise things for which they prayed were not bestowed? 
Thus our Saviour prayed, with submission, for the- removal of 
his cup of suifering ; and Paul prayed for the removal of his 
thorn in the flesh. He also prayed for the salvation of all Israel ; 
and for the entire sanctification of the Thessalonian's. "The 
very God of peace sanctify you wholly ; and I pray God your 
whole spirit, and soul, and body be preserved blameless unto 
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (See Rom. x. 1 ; 1 
Thess. v. 23.) Yet all Israel were not saved; nor were the 
Thessalonians immediately and entirely sanctified : for in his 
next epistle to them, Paul speaks of some "who walk disorderly, 
working not at all, but are busybodies " (2 Thess. iii. 11). In 
short, it is no proof of perfection in the present life that Chris- 
tians may properly desire such a state, and may humbly and 
submissively express their desires in prayer. 

8. It is said, finally, that certain individuals have actually 
attained to a state of entire sanctification in the present world. 
Noah was " a just man, and perfect in his generations " (Gen. 
vi. 9). Job was "perfect and upright, one that feared God and 
eschewed evil " (Job i. 1). Peter was "filled with the Holy 
Ghost," on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 4) . Barnabas " was 
a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith " (Acts xi. 



504 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

24) . But when we look at the subsequent character of these 
pious men, we see that the perfection ascribed to them was only 
comparative, not entire. Certainly they were not sinless. Long 
after Noah was called perfect, we find him drunken in his tent, 
and his nakedness exposed to the view of his children. Not- 
withstanding the perfection ascribed to Job, we hear him saying : 
" Behold, I am vile !" "I abhor myself and repent in dust and 
ashes " (Job xl. 4 ; xlii. 6). Years after the day of Pentecost, 
Peter dissembled to such a degree, through fear of the Jews, 
that Paul "withstood him to his face, because he was to be 
blamed ; " and " Barnabas also was carried away with their dis- 
simulation" (Gal. ii. 11-13). But it is insisted that Paul and 
John, if no others, were perfect men. Yet they both disclaim 
it, in the most explicit terms. " Not as though I had already 
attained, either were already perfect. But I follow after," etc. 
(Phil. iii. 12). "If," says John, "we say we have no sin, we 
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us " (1 John i. 8). 

I have thus noticed the principal arguments, in proof of per- 
fection in the present life ; and, to my own mind, they are insuf- 
ficient. They leave the doctrine unsustained. And here I 
might, with propriety, leave the subject ; for if the doctrine in 
question is not proved, it has no valid claim upon the faith of 
Christians. 

But such is the interest and importance of the subject, that I 
cannot consent to leave it here. I proceed therefore to show, 
by a variety of considerations, that there is no proper, sinless 
perfection in the present world. And, — 

1. I urge against the doctrine in question the almost unani- 
mous opinion of the church, from the beginning to the present 
time. In the church of Israel, there seem to have been no pre- 
tenders to a sinless perfection. Their perpetual atonements 
and purifications all carried with them the idea that they were 
unclean; and the universal impression, during the first four 
thousand years of the church's history, seems to have been this : 
"There is no man living that sinneth not." "Who can say, I 
have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?" 

Soon after the introduction of the new dispensation, and the 
great revival on the day of Pentecost, when, if ever, we might 



CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 505 

expect entire freedom from sin, we find "murmuring," and im- 
perfections among the disciples. We find repeated mention of 
errors and faults, even among the inspired apostles ; and we hear 
them disclaiming, as before remarked, all pretence of having 
arrived to a sinless perfection. 

In'the ages succeeding the apostles, we discover no perfec- 
tion, and no pretenders to it, except among the wildest fanatics. 
The sentiment of the ancient church was well expressed in the 
following adage of Jerome : " The only perfection of men is to 
know themselves imperfect." 

The doctrine of perfection was taught by Pelagius and his 
followers, and has been held by individuals in the Church of 
Kome. Some of the saints, it is thought, have been even more 
than perfect, — leaving a surplus of merit for the benefit of 
others. 

In short, it may be truly said, that the doctrine of perfection 
has scarcely had a respectable advocate, until the late Mr. John 
Wesley. And even he did not inculcate a sinless perfection. 
" The most perfect," says he, " have continual need of the merits 
of Christ, even for their actual transgressions ; and may say 
for themselves, as well as for their brethren, Forgive us our 
trespasses." 

2. The mode in which perfection is said, by its modern advo- 
cates, to be attained, seems to me unscriptural and absurd. It 
is attained, they tell us, instantaneously. The individual reaches 
it at a bound. Whereas the Scriptures represent sanctification 
as a progressive work. The Christian grows in grace : " First 
the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear." "The 
path of the just is as the shining light, which shines more and 
more unto the perfect day " (Prov. iv. 18). 

Christian sanctification is moreover represented by its advo- 
cates as conditioned, like justification, upon faith. The two 
doctrines, sanctification and justification, are placed on much 
the same footing ; and faith is made the condition' of the one as 
much as of the other. But to this mode of sanctification there 
are insuperable objections. In the first place, there is no such 
likeness or analogy between sanctification and justification as is 
here supposed. So far from this, there are scarcely any two 

64 



506 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

points connected with our salvation which are more unlike. 
For example : justification is a sovereign act of God, forgiving 
and accepting the penitent, believing soul. But sanctification is 
a part of the official work of the Holy Spirit, purifying the soul 
from sin, and preparing it for heaven. In justification, God 
does that for us which we cannot do for ourselves, which w*e are 
not required to do, which we are forbidden to attempt. But in 
sanctification, we are led by the Spirit to the active doing of 
that, which is within the scope of our natural ability and of 
God's requirements, but which, owing to the depravity of our 
hearts, we never perform, without divine aid. Of justification, 
we are the passive recipients ; while of sanctification, we are, 
under God, the willing agents, — God "working in us to will 
and to do," while we "work out our own salvation with fear 
and trembling." As, in justification, we have ourselves nothing 
to do, so motives are never addressed to us with respect to this 
object ; but sanctification, from first to last, is carried on through 
the instrumentality of motives, set home and made effectual by 
the Holy Spirit. Justification, so far as relates to the penalty 
of the , f divine law, is instantaneous and perfect ; but sanctifica- 
tion is gradual and partial, commenced and going forward in 
this life, but not completed till we arrive at heaven. In the 
gospel, justification is, with the utmost propriety, conditioned 
upon faith. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, 
through our Lord Jesus Christ." But nowhere in the gospel 
do we find sanctification thus conditioned upon faith. Faith, 
being a holy exercise, is a part of sanctification, and an impor- 
tant part ; so that the more faith a person has, the more he is 
sanctified. Faith, also, by giving vividness and impression to 
the truths of revelation, and thus increasing their power over 
the mind, tends greatly to promote our sanctification. Still, 
faith is not a condition of sanctification, as it is of justification. 
The. subject is never so represented in the Scriptures ; and it 
would be a serious objection to them, if it were ; as the idea 
involves a manifest absurdity. It is no more or less than this : 
"If you will put forth an act of perfect faith (for imperfect faith 
will not answer here) and so become perfect, you shall be 
perfect. And if you will continue in this happy state, putting 



CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 507 

forth successively these perfect acts of faith, and thus keeping 
yourself perfect, you shall continue perfect." Suffice it to say, 
that such is not the scriptural mode of sanctification. It is not 
the way in which a person ever was sanctified, or ever can be. 
Believers are sanctified through the truth, and by the accom- 
panying power of the Holy Spirit. The work is commenced in 
regeneration, it is carried forward here on earth, but is not 
completed till the soul arrives at heaven. 

3. I urge further against the doctrine of perfection, that the 
Christian life on earth is represented as a state of warfare. Nor 
is this a mere outward conflict against the temptations of the 
world and the seductions of Satan. Nor is it a conflict against 
untoward propensities and habits merely, — things, which, in 
themselves, are'not morally evil. The warfare of the Christian, 
in- its interior, deeper elements, is a more serious matter than 
all this. It is primarily and essentially a contest against sin. 
The Apostle Paul has described it, in a single sentence : M The 
flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh ; 
and these two are contrary the one to the other, so that ye 
cannot do the things that ye would" (Gal. v. 17). What the 
apostle here means by the term flesh is very obvious. It is that 
which is carnal, and opposed to the Spirit ; which prevents the 
Christian from fulfilling his holy, spiritual desires, and accom- 
plishing the good that he would. In short, the term flesh here, 
as in most other places in the writings of Paul, includes the 
idea of sin ; and the warfare of the Christian, in its most im- 
portant features, is a struggle against remaining, indwelling 
sin. Of course, then, he is not free from sin. Nor is he likely 
to gain his last victory over it till his probation on earth is 
finished, and he enters heaven. 

4. Another argument against perfection is drawn from those 
chastisements to which the Christian here is continually subject. 
The afflictions of God's people in the present world are to be 
regarded, — not as penal, exemplary judgments, such as some- 
times overtake the wicked, — but rather as the corrections of a 
Father's rod, the kind and merciful visitations of his hand. 
But why does God correct his people? Why does he visit 
them, in this life, with so many chastisements? These inquiries 



508 CHRISTIAN" THEOLOGY. 

he has himself answered. "If his children forsake my law, and 
walk not in my judgments ; if they break my statutes, and keep 
not my commandments ; then will I visit their transgressions 
with a rod, and their iniquity with stripes " (Ps. lxxxix. 30-32). 
If the children of God were perfectly good children, — if they 
never violated his laws, or incurred his displeasure, — why should 
they be chastised at all ? Why should the rod be laid upon 
them, and they be caused to- bleed and to smart under it? No 
kind earthly parent would treat perfectly good children after 
this manner, — inflicting the rod when they had committed no 
offence. God does not thus treat his perfectly good children 
in the other world. Nor would he chastise his children here, 
if they were not chargeable with remaining sin. And as their 
afflictions terminate only with their breath, we* may well con- 
clude that their sins and sorrows come to an end together. 

5. The doctrine of perfection in this life is contradicted by 
many Scriptures. The Psalmist says : " I have seen an end of 
all perfection." Why? "Thy commandment is exceeding 
broad." Two remarkable and most instructive paragraphs to 
be brought together (Ps. cxix. 96). Solomon says : "There is 
no man that sinneth not " (1 Kings viii. 46). And as though 
this were not enough, he adds : " There is not a just man upon 
earth that cloeth good and sinneth not " (Ecc. vii. 20) . He 
even interrogates further, and says : " Who can say, I have 
made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?" — implying 
strongly that no one can say this (Prov. xx. 9). The Apostle 
James, speaking of himself and his brethren says : " In many 
things, we offend all," or we all offend (James iii. 2). The 
Apostle John says : " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive 
ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John i. 8). Our. 
Saviour directs his disciples to pray daily, as long as they live, 
" Forgive us our trespasses ; " — implying that so long as they 
live, they will have trespasses to be forgiven. It may be 
added, — 

6. The more closely Christians walk with God on the earth, 
the more experience they have in religion, and the more deeply 
they become acquainted with their own hearts, the more sen- 

ible they are of their own unworthiuess. It was when Job 



CHEISTIAN PEKFECTION. 509 

was favored with the clearest manifestations of God, and his 
heart was filled with awe and love, that he said : " I abhor 
myself and repent in dust and ashes" (Job xlii. 6). It was 
when Isaiah was caught up, as it were, into heaven, and had 
the brightest visions of celestial glory, that he exclaimed, "Woe 
is me, for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips " 
(Is. vi. 5). Augustine could not have written his Confessions, 
nor Bunyan his Holy War, nor could President Edwards have 
used the strong language in which he was wont to speak of his 
sinfulness the first week after his conversion, nor the first year. 
The deep knowledge which these holy men gained of their own 
corruptions was the result of much trial, experience, examina- 
tion, and watchfulness. As they grew in grace from year to 
year, and made progress in the Christian life, they grew in 
humility and penitence, and in deep and a*ffecting views of their 
own unworthiness. And so it is with every other growing 
Christian. His confidence in himself diminishes, in proportion 
as his spiritual attainments increase. As he learns more of the 
extent and purity of God's law, and sees more clearly the 
beauty and excellency of holiness, he feels more deeply the 
defilement and the guilt of sin. He finds new sources of evil 
opening in his heart, and points of duty before unobserved 
demand attention. And thus, while he is really improving in 
all goodness, he seems to himself often to be deteriorating. 
He finds himself at a. vast and seemingly increasing distance 
from that mark of perfection at which he aims. 

In view of all that has been here said, I must regard those 
claims to perfection which are sometimes made by Christians at 
this day — perhaps by young, inexperienced Christians — as a 
delusion. Nor do I think the delusion a harmless one. Its 
influence, in many ways, will be injurious. 

In the first place, it will lead those who embrace it to lower 
down the claims of the divine law. The law will receive such 
modifications at their hands, that they can easily bring them- 
selves up to what they conceive to be the measure of its requi- 
sitions. It will be so accommodated to # the present infirmities 
and imperfections of men, that it will be no difficult matter for 
them to yield a constant and perfect obedience. But then, how 



510 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

will such a modified law operate, in producing in the minds of 
Christians that deep sense of deficiency and unworthiness, and 
those feelings of humility and self-abasement, in which Christian 
piety so essentially consists ? And what will it be worth, as an 
instrument of conviction to the impenitent sinner ? How shall 
sinners of the more respectable class be made to see that they 
fall much short of the claims of such a law, or are in any great 
danger from its condemning power ? 

Another tendency of the delusion of which we speak is, to 
self-righteousness, censoriousness, and spiritual pride. Those 
who think themselves perfect will, of course, think themselves 
much better than others, and will look down upon their imper- 
fect brethren with an eye of pity, it may be of censure or of 
scorn. This spiritual pride is, perhaps, the most insinuating 
and deceitful of all our sins. It glides insensibly into the heart, 
and, when once there, it is not easy of detection or expulsion. 
It is a sin against which all Christians have need to be watchful, 
and to which those Christians who think themselves perfect are 
peculiarly exposed. 

A connection has been observed, often, between a fancied 
perfection and wild, fanatical, enthusiastic notions. So it was 
with the ancient perfectionists. They were all of them fanatics 
of the wildest stamp. And so it was among the early followers 
of Mr. Wesley. Soon after the doctrine of perfection began to 
•spread in London, Mr. Wesley tells us that " enthusiasm broke 
in. Two or three' began to take their own imaginations for 
impressions from God, and thence to suppose that they should 
never die. The same persons, with a few more, ran into other 
extravagances, fancying that they could not be tempted; that 
they should feel no more pain ; and that they had the gift of 
prophecy and of discerning of spirits. At my return among 
them, some stood reproved, but others had got beyond instruc- 
tion." i 

Those who fall into the delusion of which we speak, are often 
led to undervalue Christian ordinances and religious means. 
The Sabbath, the house of God, sacraments, and set times of 
prayer, may be needful for those who are struggling under the 

1 Plain Account, &c, p. 76. 



CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 511 

bonds of sin ; but what necessity have the perfect for any of 
these things ? Every day is to them a Sabbath, and every place 
a temple, and every breath as the incense of heaven. For per- 
sons in this state, ordinances are low and carnal things. 

Still another hurtful influence of this delusion is, it will be 
likely to hinder the growth of Christians, and stay their progress 
in the divine life. Persons will not hunger and thirst after 
righteousness who think that they are already filled. They will 
not give all diligence to make their calling and election sure, 
when to them it is made sure already. They will be likely to 
rest satisfied with present attainments, and not make those 
efforts to advance in holiness to which, under other circum- 
stances, they would feel themselves impelled. 

I know it has been said that the views we have presented 
have a tendency to discourage effort, and prevent those advances 
in the divine life which it is the duty and the privilege of all 
Christians to make. "If we are never to be perfect in the 
present world, then we will strive no more after it. We will 
relax exertion, and rest satisfied with our imperfections." But 
this language is such as no true Christian will ever use. His 
heart will not permit him to use it. Besides, the objection is 
one which would not be allowed the least weight or influence in 
any similar case. Take, for example, perfection in knowledge. 
No one expects perfect knowledge in- the present world. Learn 
as much as we may, we shall still remain far short, not only of 
absolute perfection, but that degree of perfection to which we 
aspire. But should this consideration be permitted to obstruct 
our progress in knowledge ? Should this induce us to fold our 
hands, and remain satisfied with our present ignorance? No 
more should the certainty that we are not to reach the summit 
of moral perfection — perfection in holiness, in the present life 
— discourage our efforts to grow in grace. Both in knowledge 
and holiness we may yet have a long way before us. We may 
have heights to climb and difficulties to overcome, of which we, 
in our weakness, have never dreamed. But let us not, on this 
account, be discouraged or despond. We have a faithful Leader, 
and an all-prevalent Intercessor. We have a kind Father in 
heaven, who watches over us, and.whose ear is ever opened to 



512 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

our requests. Let us, then, "gird up the loins of our minds, 
and hope unto the end." Let us press onward in our Christian 
course, and never be discouraged till we lay down our .bodies 
in the dust of death; and then the last sin will be overcome, 
the conflict will be ended, and our struggling souls will be set 
at liberty. 

With a single word of explanation, we close. We are not 
opposed to the perfection of Christians. God forbid. The more 
nearly perfect they are, the better. But let them not fancy 
themselves perfect when they are not. This is the delusion of 
which we complain. Let no one " think of himself more highly 
than he ought to think, but think soberly, according as God 
hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." 



THE MEANS OF GRACE. 513 



LECTURE XL Yin. 

THE MEANS OF GRACE. 

The means of grace are the motives or means by which holy 
or gracious affections are awakened in the soul . 

There is no inherent efficacy in means ; and yet it is implied 
in the very term, means, that there is a tendency in them — a 
constituted tendency — towards the production of the end in 
view ; else they would not be means at all. God has so consti- 
tuted the human mind, on the one hand, and the means of grace 
on the other, that there is a strong tendency in the latter to 
excite and influence the former, and to influence it for good. 
Were it not so, there would be no reason or propriety in using 
means, either for our own benefit or that of others. Why make 
use of that for the production of an end which has no tendency 
to promote that end ? Why should God require or expect us 
to do a thing so utterly unreasonable ? 

We are so constituted as to be strongly susceptible to motive 
influences, good and bad. In other words, we are constituted 
with various and powerful principles of action, to which motives 
good and bad may be addressed. Thus there are the appetites 
and natural affections. There are the understanding and con- 
science. There is the desire of knowledge and of happiness. 
There are the emotions of sympathy, of hope, and of fear. 
Thus constituted, the worst man in the world is susceptible to 
good motive influences ; else there would be no propriety in 
using with him the motives of the gospel. And the best man 
in the world is susceptible to bad motive influences ; else it 
would not be possible for a good man to be tempted, or, in fact, 
to have any proper probation. 

I make these remarks for the purpose of showing that although 

65 



514 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

there is no inherent efficacy in the means of grace, yet they have 
a strong constituted tendency to move the mind and heart, and 
sanctify the soul. In putting these means into. our hands, and 
directing us to use them, God has given us an admirably 
appointed and adapted instrument for accomplishing the end in 
view. He has given us, not an edgeless, pointless weapon, 
but a sharp two-edged sword, which is able, through God, to 
prick to the heart, and cut away the strongholds of pride and 
sin. 

We may even go further, and say, not only that the means of 
grace are adapted to excite holy affections, but that holy affec- 
tions are never excited, except through their influence. Love, 
for example, necessarily implies an object loved, and a motive 
or reason for its being loved. And so of every other holy affec- 
tion. From the nature of the case, every such affection must 
have an object and a motive. We sometimes hear it said, that, 
though God ordinarily works by means in sanctifying men, he 
could, if he pleased, work without them. But I am far from 
being certain that this is true. I very much doubt whether, as 
we are constituted, God could work without means, in the mat- 
ter of converting and sanctifying souls. How could there be 
love, repentance, or faith, in view of nothing, or with nothing 
presented to awaken, to draw forth, these gracious affections? 
The thing seems to me impossible. 

The appointed means of grace, the means of exciting gracious, 
affections in the soul, are the truth of God, and chiefly his 
revealed truth. " The sword of the Spirit " — the instrument 
with which the Divine Spirit operates in converting and sancti- 
fying souls, — we are expressly told "is the word of God" 
(Eph. vi. 17). Christians are said to have been spiritually 
begotten " through the gospel ; " and to have been " born again, 
not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, which is the word 
of God" (1 Cor. iv. 15; 1 Pet. i. 23). Our Saviour prayed 
for his disciples, that they might be "sanctified through the 
truth" (John xvii. 17). The truth of God, then, in its instruc- 
tions, precepts, promises, and threatenings ; in its addresses to 
the understandings and consciences of men ; in its appeals to 
their hopes, and fears, and sympathies ;— this constitutes the 



THE MEANS OF GEACE. 515 

ordinary means of grace, under the influence of which the soul 
is renewed, sanctified, and made meet for heaven. 

Persons use the means of grace for their own benefit, by read- 
ing and studying the Word of God ; by hearing it preached ; 
by listening to the conversation, and witnessing the pious exam- 
ple of Christians ; by meditation, self-examination, praise, and 
prayer. Persons use the means of grace for the benefit of oth- 
ers, by furnishing them with the Bible, and other religious 
books ; by preaching to them the gospel ; by conversing with 
them, and instructing them more privately in the things of 
religion ; by praying with them and for them ; and by setting 
before them a consistent Christian example. 

In using means for the benefit of others, much depends on a 
wise adaptation of them. Christians may so adapt their religious 
conversation, that it shall be like "apples of gold in pictures of 
silver ; " and they may so fail in this respect that their most 
serious efforts for the good of others shall be like " casting 
pearls before the swine." It is not enough for ministers to be 
theoretically acquainted with the truth ; they must know how 
rightly to divide the word of truth. They must be faithful and 
wise stewards of the mysteries of God, who know how to give 
to every one his portion of meat in due season. 

Much of the wisdom of winnino- souls consists in the skill 
and faithfulness with which a minister is able to adapt and apply 
the constituted means of grace. In order to do this with good 
effect, a minister needs to be well acquainted with human 
nature, and with the laws and operations of the human mind. 
He needs, also, to be intimately acquainted with the spiritual 
concerns of the people of his charge. He must know, as far as 
practicable, from week to week, in what state they are ; else 
how can he so adapt his instructions and warnings as to meet 
the exigencies of their case? 

It has been made a question , whether it is the duty of sinners 
to use means for their own conversion ; or whether they are to 
be directed to use them ? The proper answer to this question 
will depend entirely on the manner in which it is understood. 
If the question be, whether it is the duty of sinners to enter 
upon a course of means, with impenitent hearts, in the expecta- 



516 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

tion that, after a time, if they persevere, their hearts will be 
changed ; I should reply, at once, that this is not their duty. 
How can it be ? According to the supposition, the sinner enters 
upon his course of means in a state of impenitence. But are 
not all acts done in impenitence sinful acts ? And can it be the 
duty of a person, under any circumstances, to commit sin? 
Who does not see that the very terms involve a contradiction, 
an absurdity? 

Besides, the supposition before us implies what is not true. 
It implies that the sinner has no power — in any sense of the 
word power — to love God and do his duty ; and that the best 
he can do is to use means with such a heart as he has, and wait 
for God to give him a holy heart. Now all this is unscriptural, 
erroneous ; and, not only so, it is a species of error which, 
wherever imbibed, cannot fail to have a disastrous influence. It 
will lead the sinner to defer present duty, and persist in sin, 
and charge his continued impenitence upon God, and hope 
(without reason) that God' will one day change his heart, and 
prepare him for heaven. 

But if the question under consideration be, whether it is the 
duty of sinners, in view of means and under their influence, 
immediately to give their hearts to God ; the question, thus 
presented, should be answered in the affirmative. That there 
are means of grace is certain, — means calculated to awaken 
holy affections, and without which such affections never are 
awakened ; and it is the manifest duty of sinners — as of every 
one else who is favored with the means of grace— to attend 
upon them. But, attend how? Not sinfully, but holily ; not 
with wrong feelings, but with right. In other words, as soon 
as the sinner comes under the influence of appropriate means, it 
is his duty to yield to them. It is his duty to submit, repent, 
and become at once a new creature. This is the only way in 
which sinners can be said properly to use the means of grace. 
To. attend upon such means, and pertinaciously resist them ; to 
listen to the instructions and motives of the gospel, and refuse 
or neglect to submit to their influence, — this, surely, is not to 
use meaus, but to pervert and abuse them. And this is the way 
in which hundreds and thousands do abuse the means of grace, 



THE MEANS OF GRACE. 517 

under the miserable pretence of using them. Nothing is more 
evident than that sinners cannot be said properly to use the 
m^ans of grace, except in yielding to them ; except in immedi- 
ately submitting and repenting under them. Anything short of 
this is not a use of appointed means, but a palpable abuse of 
them . 

If it be asked, whether sinners who attend on the means of 
grace, though impenitently, are not more likely to be converted 
than those who neglect them, it may be admitted that they are, 
at least for a time, until they become hardened ; and for the 
same reason that a man is more likely to be persuaded to. do 
anything else, who listens to persuasive motives, than he who 
refuses or neglects to listen. Still, this does not prove that 
an individual may be excused in listening to the motives of 
the gospel, — motives which ought to subdue him at once, — for 
a year, or a day, or an hour, or a moment, and still remain 
unaffected. It is his duty to embrace Christ's gospel on the 
spot ; and anything short of this .is continued rebellion. 

If it be inquired whether sinners may not be exhorted to" 
attend on the means of grace, and perform the outward duties 
of religion ; I answer, certainly. They are so exhorted in the 
Bible. But, attend how? Attend and resist, and wait to be 
subdued? or attend and yield at once? . There is no room for a 
question on this subject. The sinner should be directed to 
pray, and to pray right ; to read the Scriptures and to read 
right; to hear the gospel, and to hear right; to perform any 
and every appropriate religious duty, and to perform it right. 
i, He should be exhorted to attend on the means of grace, with 
the understanding that he is bound to yield to them at once ; 
and that, if he does not yield, his attendance is, not a use of 
them, but rather an abuse. With this understanding, ministers 
need have no hesitation in urging sinners to attend upon any 
appropriate means, or to perform any external religious duties. 
And it is better, often, that sinners should be urged and 
exhorted in this way, than that they should be plied with the 
bald, unexplained exhortation to repent. The exhortation to 
repent not unfrequently seems unintelligible and intangible ; 
while the direction to perform some outward religious duty with 



518 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

penitent feelings, with unfeigned sorrow of heart for sin (which 
amounts to the same thing), is mucli better understood. 

It is interesting to look into the Bible, and see with wfrat 
variety and freedom the sacred writers give directions to the 
impenitent sinner. He must consider his ways ; he must search 
the Scriptures ; he must ponder the path of his feet ; he must 
seek and knock and strive ; he must turn from his evil ways ; he 
must make to . himself a new heart and a new spirit ; he must 
repent and believe the gospel. " Submit yourselves, therefore, 
to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw 
nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your 
hands, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double-minded. 
Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep. Let your laughter be 
turned into mourning and your, joy into heaviness. Humble 
yourselves in the sight of God, and he shall lift you up" (James 
iv. 7-10) . In one instance we find our Saviour directing an 
inquiring sinner to sell all that he had and give to the poor. 
With examples such as these before him, the minister of Christ 
need have no hesitation in directing the anxious inquirer to do 
anything which he thinks may tend to further his salvation ; 
understanding always that whatever he does must be done in the 
exercise of right affections, and avoiding, of course, such forms 
of direction as can be followed only in the exercise of sin. 

Some have been afraid to direct impenitent persons to pray, 
under the impression that the prayers of the wicked are 
sin. But so "the ploughing of the wicked is sin," and "the 
thought of foolishness is sin" (Prov. xxi. 4; xxiv. 9). But is 
this any reason why the wicked should not plough or think ? No 
more is it a reason why they should not pray. The ploughing 
of the wicked is sin, because it is wicked ploughing, or plough- 
ing wickedly ; and the thought of the wicked is sin, because it 
is thinking wickedly. And so the prayers of the wicked are 
sin, because they are wicked prayers, offered up in selfishness, 
pride, and opposition to God. Let the wicked man plough (if 
he have occasion thus to employ himself) , and plough right. 
Let him think, and think right. Let him pray also, with all 
prayer and supplication, and pray right, — with holy desires and 
for holy ends. Whether he eats or drinks, or whatever he does, 



THE MEANS OF GRACE.. 519 

let him do all to the glory of God ; and then God will accept 
him, and bless him forever. 

This subject of means and unregenerate doings was much con- 
troverted in New England less than a hundred years ago ; the 
one party (holding to the natural inability of the sinner to turn 
to God and do his duty) insisting that he must be directed to 
do what he could do ; to read, and pray, and use means, and 
even go to the Lord's table, with such a heart as he had, in hope 
that God would give him a better heart ; while the other party 
(holding to the natural ability and immediate obligation of the 
sinner to repent) insisted that he should be directed to repent 
and believe the gospel; or if other duties were enjoined, it 
should be with the understanding that they should be performed 
with a holy, humble, penitent heart. This controversy has nearly 
subsided in later years ; all evangelical ministers acquiescing in 
the opinion that the latter kind of direction is the more consist- 
ent and scriptural. 

There would have been little difficulty with the subject at any 
time, had it not been unnecessarily mystified by a false philoso- 
phy. If regeneration is a physical change, in which an entirely 
passive subject is wrought over into some other kind of creature ; 
and if there are means appointed tending in any way to further 
the needed change ; why, the most the sinner can dp is to use 
them, and wait the result. He may be under the necessity of 
sinning in the use of them, but then he must sin if he does not 
use them ; and it may be advisable that he should sin in that 
way which will do him the least hurt and the .most good. But 
if regeneration is a moral, spiritual change, — the free, spon- 
taneous turning of the sinner unto God, under the influence of 
the Divine Spirit, and the motives of the gospel ; then , obviously, 
it is the immediate duty of the sinner to turn ; and for him to 
neglect this duty under pretence of doing something else first, 
and with a view to prepare him to turn to God, is only to affront 
God and cheat himself with a vain excuse. It is to persist in a 
needless and inexcusable impenitence. 



520 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE XLIX. 

PRAYER. 

"Prayer," says the Assembly's Catechism, "is the offering of 
our desires to God, for things agreeable to his will, in the name 
of Christ, with confession of our sins and a thankful acknowl- 
edgment of his mercies." 

A full, well-ordered prayer may be regarded as consisting of 
several parts, — as adoration, thanksgiving, confession, supplica- 
tion, and intercession. These different parts of prayer should 
each and all of them be offered up with corresponding and 
appropriate feelings of heart. Thus, in adoration, which is the 
ascribing to God of the perfections which belong to his nature 
and character, there should be strong affection, devotion, confi- 
dence, reverence, and holy fear. In thanksgiving, there should 
be the pouring forth of holy gratitude. In confession, there 
should be deep penitence for sin. In supplication, there should 
be a sense of humble, childlike dependence upon God, and an 
earnest looking to him as the source of needed blessings. In 
intercession, there should be love to our fellow-men, as well as 
to God, and an earnest desire for their highest good. 

In praying for blessings not expressly promised, we should 
come before God with the most profound submission to his will. 
We may humbly ask for such things as seem to us desirable ; 
but where we have no promise or revealed purpose on which to 
rest our faith, we must be able to append to our petitions, what 
our blessed Saviour did to his, not our wills, but thine be done. 

Prayer, to be accepted, must be offered in the name of Christ. 
This implies two things : A reliance upon Christ's atonement 
for the pardon of our sins, and on his intercession for the pre- 
sentment and acceptance of our imperfect worship before the 



PRAYER. 521 

throne of God. When the high-priest in Israel went into the 
most holy place to offer up incense before God, the whole mul- 
titude of the people stood praying without, at the time of 
incense, so that their prayers might ascend up perfumed by the 
incense of the priest. In like manner our great High-Priest 
perfumes with the incense of his intercession the supplications 
of his people, and thus renders them acceptable in the sight of 
God. And to offer up prayer in his name implies an affection- 
ate reliance on him for this important purpose. 

Prayer, to be accepted, must be offered up in faith ; and the 
question arises, What is the prayer of faith? How much is 
implied in it ? The importance of this inquiry demands that it 
be considered somewhat at length. I shall endeavor to show, 
first, what is not implied in the prayer of faith; and, secondly, 
what it does imply. 

The prayer of faith, then, does not imply (what some have 
supposed) that we are to believe, in all cases, while praying, 
that the very things for which we pray will be bestowed. For, — 

1. There is nothing, in every case, on which such faith can 
be reasonably founded. In some cases we have a revealed pur- 
pose of God, or a divine promise, on which to rest our faith, 
that the very things we pray for will be bestowed. But not so 
in every case. Yery often we desire things, and with great 
propriety make them subjects of prayer, in respect to the 
bestowment of which we have no means of knowing what the 
divine pleasure is. And now, if, in praying for such things, 
we are to believe assuredly that they will be bestowed, the 
question arises, On what is such faith to rest? What is the 
evidence on which to ground it ? A rational man cannot believe 
without evidence ; and the evidence here is, by the very sup- 
position, wanting. 

2. If in all cases of prayer we are to believe assuredly that 
the very things we pray for w 7 ill be bestowed, then we need 
never pray with submission. We need never pray as our 
Saviour did, "Lord, not my will, but thine, be done." Indeed, 
we cannot so pray, because we are to be assured that our wills 

^will be done. Our desires will be gratified, and our prayers 
heard. 



522 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

3. It is conclusive against that notion of the prayer of faith 
which we are now considering, that holy, inspired men have 
often prayed, and prayed in faith, for things which have not 
been bestowed. Our Saviour prayed for his followers, that 
they might be kept from evil while in the world, and that they 
all might be one, as he was one with the Father (John xvii. 15, 
21). He prayed that, if it were possible, the cup of suffering 
might be taken from him. He prayed on the cross for the for- 
giveness of his murderers. Stephen, too, prayed for the for- 
giveness of his murderers. And yet it is not likely that the 
murderers of Christ and of Stephen were all of them forgiven. 

Paul prayed for the salvation of all the Israelites. "My 
heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they may be 
saved" (Porn, x. 1). He prayed, also, for the perfection of 
Christians in the present life, — that "the God of peace would 
sanctify them wholly, and that their whole spirit and soul and 
body might be preserved blameless, unto the coming of the 
Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. v. 23). Epaphras prayed "fervently" 
for the Colossians, that they might " stand perfect and complete 
in all the will of Christ" (Col. iv. 12). Paul besought the 
Lord earnestly and repeatedly, and in such a way as to gain an 
answer, for the removal of his " thorn in the flesh ; " but yet 
the thorn was not removed (2 Cor. xii. 8). 

In all these cases it cannot be doubted that the individuals 
spoken of prayed in faith, and in a manner acceptable to God. 
And yet they did not pray believing assuredly 2 and on sufficient 
grounds, that the things prayed for would be bestowed, because 
they were not bestowed. 

4. Our Saviour taught his disciples to pray for that which 
they had no reason to expect would be bestowed, certainly not 
in their day, if ever. " Thy will be done on earth as it is in * 
heaven." "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from 
evil." Thus prayed the disciples, at the direction of Christ, 
more than eighteen hundred years ago. And yet the will of 
God has never been done on this earth as it is in heaven ; and 
it may well be doubted whether it ever will be. Neither have 
Christians who have offered up this prayer and presented it in 
faith, been afterwards kept from all temptation and delivered * 
from all evil. 



PRAYER. 523 

5. That notion of the prayer of faith which we are consider- 
ing, if true, would be a most undesirable truth. Considering 
what men and women are here on earth, even in their best 
estate, it would not be safe, either for them or for the world, 
that they should always have their desires gratified and their 
prayers answered in the bestowment of their immediate requests. 
It would not be safe to entrust them with the power of obtain- 
ing, under all circumstances, just what they were pleased to 
ask. This would be committing to short-sighted, imperfect 
men a power which they are not competent, in the best man- 
ner, to exercise. It would be virtually taking the disposals of 
providence out of the hands of God, and placing them in the 
hands of weak and fallible men. 

6. I object, once more, to this notion of the prayer of faith, 
that it involves manifest contradictions and impossibilities. For 
Christians, in their weakness, are not unfrequently heard pray- 
ing one against another. They pray, and pray in faith, for 
opposite things. My good Baptist brother, in time of revival, 
prays earnestly and in faith that all the converts may go into 
the water, and join his church. My Congregational brother 
prays as earnestly that a full share of them may come to him. 
And how shall both, under such circumstances, be gratified? 
How can both receive, the very things for which they pray? 

Perhaps it will be said that such cases can never happen, 
since the same Spirit which gives the requisite faith will show 
the subjects of it what they are, and are not, to ask of God. 
But this supposes a constant succession of new revelations from 
the Spirit, and, of. course, that the age of revelation is not yet 
past, neither is the volume of revelation as yet complete, — -a 
supposition which few sober people will be inclined to adopt. 

Certain passages of Scripture are often quoted to sustain that 
notion of the prayer of faith which has been considered, but 
when properly interpreted they fail to do it. Some of the pas- 
sages referred to merely hold out strong encouragement to 
prayer, 1 while others relate to the faith and the age of miracles, 
with which, of course, we have nothing to do. 2 I know of no 

1 As specimens of this class, see Matt. vii. 11, and xviii. 19 ; Luke xi. 13 ; John xv. 7, and 
xvi. 23 ; 1 John iii. 22. 

2 Consult Matt. xvii. 20, and xxi. 22 ; Mark xi. 24 ; John xvi. 13 ; James v. 15. 



524 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

passage of Seripture which, soberly interpreted, will warrant 
the Christian in believing, in every case, when he prays for 
such things as seem to him desirable, that the very things for 
which he prays will be bestowed. 

But if the prayer of faith is not that which we have consid- 
ered, what is it? What is the faith which we ought to exercise 
when we stand praying before God, and without which our 
prayers cannot be accepted ? I answer, we " must believe that 
God is, and that he is the re warder of them who diligently 
seek him." We must believe that God is with us, — near to us, 
— nearer than any of the objects of sense around us ; that he 
hears and considers all our supplications, and that our prayers 
have influence with him, — all the influence which they ought to 
have, or which we could, on the whole, desire. We are to 
believe that we have great encouragement to pray, and that 
when we pray in a proper spirit and manner God will, if it be 
possible, — if he can do it in consistency with his holy purposes 
and our highest good, — he will bestow what we request. And 
if, in any case, he cannot grant what we immediately request ? 
we are to believe that he will give us something better, — some- 
thing which, if we understood the case as fully as he does, we 
should the rather desire. We are to believe that, in every case, 
his will will be done if ours is not, and this is what we, on tfie 
whole, prefer. In short, the prayer of faith implies that we 
believe not only in the existence of God, but in the duty and 
the efficacy of prayer, and that prayer is the more efficacious in 
proportion to the humility, fervency, and general propriety with 
which it is ofiered up before God. 

But this brings us to another inquiry; viz., What are we to 
understand by the efficacy of prayer? We are taught in the 
Scriptures that " the effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man 
availeth much," and we have numerous examples on sacred 
record of the efficacy of prayer. Witness Abraham praying for 
Sodom, and Jacob wrestling and prevailing with God, and 
Moses interceding in repeated instances for his guilty people. 

By the efficacy of prayer we understand its tendency or influ- 
ence to procure blessings from God, which would not otherwise 
be bestowed. The ground of its efficacy seems to be this : It 



PRAYEE. • 525 

furnishes reasons for the bestowment of blessings which other- 
wise would not exist. It is in this way that the entreaties of a 
child have influence with a tender parent. They furnish reasons 
which have weight in the mind of the parent, and which ought 
to have weight with him. It is often proper for the parent to 
bestow favors on being asked, which he could not have prop- 
erly bestowed without being asked. It is often proper for a 
government to grant favors in answer to a respectful petition, 
which would not have been granted had no petition been pre- 
sented. And so the prayers of God's people prevail with him. 
They furnish good and sufficient reasons for the bestowment of 
blessings which without prayer could never have been bestowed. 
Thus the intercessions of Moses furnished a reason why God 
should spare the children of Israel. And the prayer of Elijah 
furnished a reason, which otherwise would not have existed, 
why God should send rain upon a guilty people. And the 
prayers of Isaiah and Hezekiah furnished a reason why God 
should humble the pride of the King of Assyria and turn him 
back again to his own land. 

With this explanation as to the efficacy of prayer, it is easy 
to answer the infidel objections which are commonly urged 
against the duty of prayer. 

Prayer has been thought by some to be inconsistent with the 
moral perfections of God. " Will not God do right, — do what 
is fit and proper to be done, whether his people pray or not? 
Why then should they pray ? " Undoubtedly God will do what 
is proper and right whether his people pray or not ; but, then, 
it may be proper for him to do many things if they pray, which 
it would not be proper for him to do if they did not pray. 
Their prayers, in connection with other things, go to constitute 
the reasons on which the propriety of his dispensations is based. 
God would have done right if Elijah had not prayed for rain, 
but he might not have given rain ; and it might not have been 
proper that he should. And so of every other case. If the 
prayers of Christians go to make up the reasons on which the 
propriety of the divine dispensations is founded, then the 
efficacy of their prayers is perfectly consistent with the unvary- 
ing rectitude of these dispensations. 



526 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Again, it has been thought that the duty of prayer is quite 
superseded, — is rendered unnecessary and even nugatory, by 
the omniscience of God. "Does not God know what things 
we have need of before we ask him? Is he not perfectly 
acquainted with our necessities and wants? Of what use or 
propriety, then, is prayer?" To this I answer, that it is no 
part of the object of prayer to inform God of what before he 
did not know. If this were its object, it would, indeed, be 
superseded by the divine omniscience. But God delights in 
the communion of his creatures. He is pleased *to have them 
come before him, and affectionately and confidingly express to 
him their wants. The knowledge which a kind father may have 
of the necessities of his children does not render it improper 
that they should ask for needed favors, or make it improper 
for him to require them to ask. He may even withhold favors 
which he is sure that they need, simply because they refuse or 
neglect to ask for them. And if an earthly parent may with 
propriety do this, why not our heavenly Parent? He does 
indeed know what things we have need of before we ask him ; 
still it may be proper that we should ask. Our asking may 
furnish a reason, which otherwise would not exist, why the 
blessings we stand in need of should be bestowed. Hence, if 
we refuse or neglect to ask, he may, notwithstanding his knowl- 
edge of our necessities, — he may properly withhold these bless- 
ings from us. 

It has been further insisted that the unchangeableness of 
God is inconsistent with the efficacy of prayer. " { He is of one 
mind and none can turn him, and whatsoever his soul desireth, 
even that he doeth.' What, then, can your prayers do? And 
what ground for ascribing to them the least possible efficacy ? " 
But what are we to understand by the unchangeableness of God ? 
That he is unchangeable in such a sense as not to be influenced 
by good and sufficient reasons ? Then he is unchangeably imper- 
fect ; for, if perfect, he must be influenced by such reasons. 
God is unchangeable in his nature. He is unchangeable in all 
his natural and moral perfections. He is unchangeably disposed 
to be influenced by just reasons, and to do in every instance 
what is right. If, then, the prayers of his people, in connec- 



PRAYER. 527 

tion with other things, go to make up the reasons on which the 
propriety of his dispensations is founded, his unchangeableness 
is no objection to the efficacy of prayer, but rather implies it. 
If he is unchangeably perfect, he must be unchangeably a hearer 
of prayer. He must be unchangeably disposed to give to the 
prayers of his people all the weight and the influence which 
they deserve. 

It has been further objected that the efficacy of prayer is 
inconsistent with the divine purposes. "If everything is im- 
mutably fixed in the purpose of God, — if he has foreordained 
whatsoever comes to pass, — then what room for the efficacy of 
prayer?" But has not God foreordained means as well as 
ends, — the reasons of events, as well as the events themselves? 
IJid not God foreordain the prayer of Elijah, as well as the 
giving of rain in answer to his prayer? Did not God know, 
from all eternity, just how Elijah would pray, and just what 
weight and influence ought to be given to his prayer ; and, in 
view of all this, did he not determine the answer? If this be 
so, then the purpose of God, so far from interfering with the 
efficacy of the prophet's prayer, went rather to settle and deter- 
mine its efficacy. The prophet must pray, and his prayer must 
have its due influence with God, and the gift of rain must come 
in consequence. Each of these things was fixed and settled in 
the purpose of God, as much as either of them, and the prayer 
of the prophet had all the efficacy at the time, which it could 
have had, had there been no eternal purpose respecting it. 

These several objections to prayer, though plausible in ap- 
pearance, have really very little weight. They are the excuses 
of men who are ayerse to prayer, and who do not like to retain 
God in their knowledge. With those who love God and love 
to hold communion with him, they will have no influence ; 
less than none. Such men rejoice in the privilege of prayer. 
Instead of searching for excuses to keep them from the throne 
of grace, they fly to it with an irresistible earnestness, and pour 
their requests into the ear of Heaven, assured that their prayer 
shall not be in vain. 

It has been made a question whether it is proper to pray for 
things which God has revealed his purpose to bestow. But the 



528 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Scriptures have decided this question for us. We there hear 
inspired men, in repeated instances, offering up just such pray- 
ers as these. This did David, when he sat down before the 
Lord to commune with him of his great goodness. "There- 
fore, now, O Lord, let the thing that thou hast spoken concern- 
ing thy servant and concerning his house, be established, and 
do as thou hast said" (1 Chron. xvii. 23). This did Daniel, 
when he took encouragement from the revealed purposes of God 
to pray for the restoration of his people (Dan. ix. 2, 3). And 
so it is with Christians now. We know the purpose of God, 
that the earth shall one day be filled with his glory ; we hope 
the fulfilment of this gracious purpose is near ; and this con- 
sideration has aroused the Christian world to unwonted prayers 
and efforts to hasten the introduction of millennial glory. 

A deeper question than the foregoing has sometimes beeh 
asked ; viz., whether it is proper, under any circumstances, to 
pray for what we know God has not purposed to grant. In 
answer to this question, I may say that it is not right to pray 
for impossible things ; or for prohibited things ; or for things 
which cannot be bestowed without breaking in upon the regular 
course of providence. Miracles are out of the question with us 
at this day. Nor do I think there are many other cases in which 
it would be proper to pray for what we had every reason to sup- 
pose it was not the purpose of God to grant. And yet, I would 
not say that there can be no such cases. A thing is very desir- 
able in itself, and (as far as we can see) desirable on the whole. 
It involves no impossibility, nor any interruption of the regu- 
lar course of providence, nor is prayer for it prohibited, as in 
the case of those who have committed the sin unto death. It 
can be done, if God pleases ; and it seems to us greatly desir- 
able that it should be done. No ay, what is there to hinder us 
from pouring out our desires, humbly, submissively, before 
God in prayer, even though we may have no reason to think 
that it has entered into the great plan of God to bestow the 
blessing for which we ask ? 

It may be said that such prayers can do no good. But this is 
not certain. They may benefit the suppliant. And they may 
benefit others. They may secure gracious answers, although 



PRAYER. 529 

the precise thing prayed for is not bestowed. It may be further 
added that we have examples of such prayer in the Bible. 
When our Saviour prayed that the cup of suffering might pass 
from him, he must have known that it was the divine purpose 
that he should drink it. So, when he prayed for the forgive- 
ness of his murderers on the cross, it is not likely that he 
regarded them all as in the number of God's elect. 

It appears, from what has been said, that the grand object 
of prayer has been often mistaken. Some tell us that the 
object of praying for blessings is not to have influence with 
God in procuring them, but rather to prepare the mind of the 
suppliant for their reception in case they are bestowed. But, 
on this ground, why should we pray for blessings to be bestowed 
upon others? And why pray, as we often do, for blessings in 
the distant future, which are expected to descend upon coming 
generations ? 

Again, we are told that the leading object of prayer is, by a 
reflex influence, to be a means of grace to the suppliant, to pro- 
mote his humility, his sense of dependence, his faith and love. 
And without doubt this is to be numbered among the benefits 
of prayer. But that it is not its leading object is evident from 
the nature of the service, and from all that is said of it in the 
Bible. Who believes that the great object of Elijah in praying 
for rain was, not to procure rain, but to promote his own per- 
sonal piety and growth in grace ? 

The prime object of prayer is very obvious and very simple, 
— so simple that a mere child can understand it. It is, like 
Jacob, to have power with God. It is to move, to influence the 
Divine Being to bestow needed blessings ; and we have the sat- 
isfaction of knowing-, if we pray aright, that our prayers do have 
influence, — all the inflence to which they are entitled, all that 
we could, on the whole, desire. We know, too, that the more 
humble, fervent, and persevering we are, the greater will be 
the influence of our prayers. How much reason, then, have we 
to abound in this delightful duty ! How much reason to re- 
member the exhortation of the apostle, and "pray always, with 
all prayer and supplication " ! 

67 



530 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE L. 

DEATH. 

Death is, or should be, a subject of universal and absorbing 
interest. We see others die, and we know that this great 
change is soon to pass upon ourselves. We shall close our 
connection with sublunary things, lose all visible life and 
motion, and become to the eye of sense as though we had 
never been. But is death to be the end of us? Is it (what 
it has sometimes been denominated) an eternal sleep ? Or have 
we a soul, which is to survive the body and live in another 
state ? 

Some have argued the immortality of the soul from its inde- 
structible nature, alleging that it must exist forever. But I can 
see no force in this argument. We know not but the souls of 
brufes are as indestructible in their nature as our own, and yet 
no one supposes them immortal. God gave existence to the 
human soul, and, without doubt, he can destroy that existence 
if he pleases. Indeed, were he to withdraw his supporting 
hand, we should, in all probability, sink to our original nothing. 
The future existence of the soul, like all other created things, 
hangs suspended on the will of God ; and all sound arguments 
to prove its immortality must be regarded as but so many indi- 
cations of the divine pleasure. Of this description are various 
arguments drawn from the light of nature, as 

1. The analogy between the soul and the body. The body is 
not annihilated at death. Not a particle of matter is ever anni- 
hilated. But if death does not destroy the substance of the 
body, how can it be supposed to destroy the soul? 

2. The doctrine of the soul's immortality has prevailed, 
perhaps, among all nations, evincing that this is somehow a 



DEATH. 531 

natural sentiment, and that there must be a foundation for it in 
truth. 

3. The natural and universal sense of accountability is an in- 
dication of the soul's immortality. This sense of accountable- 
ness points us forward to a future reckoning, to a day of 
account, and, of course, to a state of conscious existence beyond 
the grave. 

4. The capacity of the soul for unlimited improvement clearly 
indicates that opportunities for improvement are to be furnished 
for it beyond those which exist in the present life. To my own 
mind, the limitless capacities of the soul as clearly indicate that 
it was made for eternity, as the particular structure and organs 
of the different kinds of animals indicate that some of them were 
made to eat flesh, and others grass ; that some were made to fly 
in the air, and some to swim in the water, and some to walk 
upon the earth. The structure of the animal shows what it was 
made for, and so the structure and capacities of the human soul 
show that it must have been made for eternity. 

5. From the unequal distribution of rewards and punish- 
ments in this life, it may be inferred that there is to be another 
life, where the seeming disorders of the present will be rectified, 
and where every one will receive according to that he hath done, 
whether it be good or evil. 

Such are some of the arguments — briefly, nakedly stated — 
which are commonly drawn from the light of nature in proof of 
the immortality of the soul. But these are all merged and 
swallowed up, as it were, in the clearer, brighter light of divine 
revelation. In his word God has told us, in a variety of ways, 
that the soul is to exist forever, and this is enough to satisfy the 
believer. We have no need to quote passages in proof of this 
point. The doctrine of immortality is assumed everywhere in 
the Scriptures. It is one of the plainest and most unquestion- 
able of all the teachings of the book of God. 

Some, who believe in a future state, regard death as a tempo- 
rary sleep of the soul, — a temporary cessation of rational, con- 
scious existence. They suppose that the entire man rests in the 
grave until the resurrection, when his conscious existence will 
be renewed. As this opinion has been commonly based on the 



532 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

materiality of the human soul, in considering it, it may be proper 
to observe, — 

1. That the soul of man is not material. Of this we may be 
certain from its properties. We know nothing about either 
matter or mind except from their properties ; but the entirely 
different properties which they exhibit, clearly indicate that they 
are, in nature, distinct the one from the other. Does matter 
think and reason, feel and act? Does it form plans, and draw 
conclusions ; remember the past, anticipate the future, and 
send abroad its soaring conceptions through immensity and eter- 
nity ? On the contrary, has mind, like matter, solidity and ex- 
tension? Is it capable of being divided, separated into parts? 
Has it length, breadth, shape, and thickness ? Is it a compounded 
substance, like the body, and capable of being resolved into its 
elementary ingredients? Questions such as these require no 
answer. The bare propounding of them is enough to convince 
any one, that between the acknowledged properties of matter and 
mind there is an utter dissimilarity. The're is no likeness or 
approximation of the one to the other. Since, then, we know 
nothing either of matter or mind but from their properties, and 
since the properties of each are so totally different, how shall we 
resist the conclusion that the substances themselves are different, 
and that as the one is material, the other must be immaterial or 
spiritual ? 

There is another argument for the spiritual nature of the 
soul, growing out of the fkct of our personal identity. We are 
conscious of being the same persons that we were years ago. 
We really are the same. But in what respects the same? Cer- 
tainly not in respect to the body, or to anything about us of a 
material nature ; for the body is continually changing ; and the 
same is true of all material things. The processes of decom- 
position, dissolution, and reconstruction are ever going on. If, 
then, the whole man is material, and there is no difference, in 
point of substance, between the soul and the body, where, I 
ask, is his continued personal identity ? Manifestly it is taken 
away. There is no such thing. And our consciousness of per- 
sonal identity is but vulgar prejudice, a delusion. It is only 
on the supposition that man has a soul, distinct from the body, 



DEATH. 533 

immaterial and incorruptible, that identity can be predicated of 
him from one day and hour to another. 

But if man has a soul distinct from the body, immaterial, 
spiritual, in point of substance like its Creator ; then, obviously, 
it may exist separate from the body. It may retain a conscious, 
active existence, when the body is dead. God, who is a spirit, 
exists without a material body. And the same may be said of 
the angels, both the holy and the fallen. They exist, without 
material bodies. And if the soul of man is in substance like 
them, then why may not it also exist in a disembodied state? 
But,— 

2. The Scriptures assure us that it does so exist. Stephen 
did not believe that his soul was about to die with his body, 
when he prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Neither did 
Paul expect to sleep, soul and body, in the grave, for thousands 
of years, when he said, "I desire to depart, and to be with 
Christ, which is far better" (Phil. i. 23). Solomon assures 
us, that when the body " returns to the dust, as it was, the spirit 
returns to God who gave it" (Ecc. xii. 7). It was while the 
bodies of Abraham, and the rich man, and Lazarus, lay mould- 
ering in the grave, that their souls are represented as existing, 
speaking, and acting in another state (Luke xvi. 24). Christ 
said to the penitent thief, " This day shalt thou be with me in 
Paradise" (Luke xxiii. 43). He said also of the patriarchs 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that they were, in some sense, liv- 
ing, hundreds of years after their bodies had been dead. " God 
is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Mat. xxii. 32). 
Paul tells us, that when saints are "absent from the body, they 
are present with the Lord ; " that whether they "wake or sleep, 
they live together with Christ ; " and that in the heavenly 
Jerusalem dwell "the spirits of just men made perfect " (2 Cor. 
v. 8 ; 1 Thess. v. 10; Heb. xii. 23). John saw, in vision, the 
souls of the murdered martyrs, and they cried, "How long, O 
Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood 
on them that dwell upon the earth?" (Rev. vi. 10.) 

These passages are plain and decisive. They teach, unequiv- 
ocally, that man, at death, does not cease to be an intelligent, 
active being. Though his body returns to the dust, his spirit 



534 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

lives. It ceases not to exercise its noble faculties, unclogged, 
unencumbered, in another state. 

There is but another supposition, in regard to the change 
which takes place in death. If the soul does not sleep with the 
body, either temporarily or eternally, but still lives and is active 
in another state, then death must be a dissolution, a separation 
between these two parts of the human constitution. They have 
been closely and mysteriously united here upon earth ; but now 
their union is dissolved ; they are separated. And this separa- 
tion, with its immediate concomitants, constitutes the whole of 
that great physical change which is denominated death. 

It may be remarked further, in regard to the great change of 
which wq are speaking, that it terminates the period of man's 
probation. This is a disputed proposition, particularly in ref- 
erence to those who die in their sins. It is believed, by many, 
that such will have a season of probation, a space for repent- 
ance, beyond the grave ; and that after a long period of suffer- 
ing, — long enough to be set forth by the Scripture terms forever 
and ever, — all will at length be purified and raised to heaven. 
But this whole doctrine of a future probation and restoration is 
refuted by a variety of considerations, drawn both from reason 
and the Word of God. 

1. If the wicked are to be on probation in the future world, 
why not the righteous ? If it is possible for the former class to 
be restored and saved after death, why not for the' latter to fall 
away and perish? There is no better foundation, either in 
Scripture or reason, for the one of these suppositions than for 
the other. 

2. The notion of a state of trial after death is unreasonable, 
because it is unnecessary. Cannot God prolong our probation, 
in this life, to any extent he pleases ? Can he not use with us 
here such means as he pleases ; and give them such efficacy as 
he pleases ; and convert and save all from this world whom he 
pleases to save? What need, then, of any other probation? 
What good purpose can it answer? On this ground, the mis- 
eries of the other world, be they longer or shorter, would seem 
to be a needless waste, and more difficult to be reconciled with 
the goodness of God, than the idea of eternal punishment. 



DEATH. 535 

3. According to the views which the Scriptures give us of 
the other world, it has no fitness or adaptation to be a state of 
trial. It is unfitted for such a state, on several accounts. It 
is so because of its duration. The wicked are to go away 
from the judgment "into everlasting punishment." The smoke 
of their torment is to "ascend up forever and ever." Now, 
admitting that these terms denote a limited period, they cer- 
tainly set forth a very long period, — one altogether too long to 
be appointed, or used as a season of probation. God does not 
need to try his creatures forever and ever, in order to form and 
develop their characters. Nor does he need to punish them 
forever and ever in order to their conversion. 

But the future world is unfitted to be a state of trial # on other 
accounts besides its duration. There is too much light there to 
admit of any proper trial of faith. The truth will so shine out 
in that world that it cannot possibly be rejected. God's truth 
may be rejected here on earth ; but in the future life it cannot 
be. The very "devils believe, and they tremble." 

In that world, too, there are not those ceaseless fluctuations, 
those conflicting influences, good and bad, those mingled temp- 
tations and restraints, which constitute, in great measure, our 
probation here. The saints in glory, delivered from all trying 
changes and corrupting influences, move onward and upward in 
their heavenly way ; while the wicked, in hell are left to sin on 
and go down, without further interruption or restraint. 

Again, in the world below, there are none of those means of 
grace, and strivings of the Spirit, which enter into the very idea 
of probation for a better life. We have no reason to think that 
the Bible is read there, or the gospel preached, or the Holy 
Spirit poured out; and without these, what would a probation 
in hell be worth? 

4. In opposition to the idea of a probation beyond the grave, 
it may be remarked that sinners often finish, virtually, their 
state of trial, long before they leave the present world. This is 
the case with those who have committed the unpardonable sin. 
This, too, is the case with the more numerous class, who have 
finally grieved away the Holy Spirit, and are judicially aban- 
doned. Such were the mass of the ten tribes of Israel in the 



536 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

days of the prophet Hosea. "Ephraim is joined to idols; let 
him alone" (Hos. iv. 17). Such were the hardened Jews, in 
the days of our Saviour. " Oh, that thou hadst known, in this 
thy day, the things which belong to thy peace ! But now they 
are hidden from thine eyes" (Luke xix. 42). Such, also, were 
some of whom the apostle speaks: "And for this cause God 
shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, 
that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but 
had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. ii. 11). There 
have been persons of this description, it may be feared, in all 
periods of the world. " My Spirit shall not always strive with 
man" (Gen. vi. 3). When God's Spirit is finally grieved 
away, and the soul is abandoned, — as is often the case with 
persons in the present life, — their probation is virtually ended. 
It has ended in fact, though not in form. And now is it likely 
that such persons will have another probation beyond the grave. 
They have provoked God to abandon them, even in this life. 
Is it likely that he will undertake again for them in the life to 
come ? 

5. That there is no probation for the wicked beyond the 
grave, is evident, since we are nowhere encouraged or author- 
ized to pray for the dead. It was not till the Jews, in the days 
of Jeremiah, had become incorrigible, and were abandoned of 
God that this holy man was forbidden to pray for them (Jer. 
vii. 16). It is because there is no longer any hope for those 
who have committed the sin unto death, that Christians are not 
permitted to pray for them (1 John v. 16). And it can only 
be because there is no longer any hope for those who die in 
their sins, that we are nowhere encouraged or authorized in the 
Scriptures to pray for them. The doctrine of purgatorial fire, 
and the practice of praying for the dead, have always existed 
in the church together ; and from the fact that this practice is 
manifestly unscriptural, we infer that the doctrine is not true. 

6. Those who believe in a future probation, and in the final 
restoration of the wicked, — for the two subjects cannot be en- 
tirely separated, — regard the punishments of the other world 
as altogether disciplinary. They are designed, not for the pub- 
lic good, but for the good of the suflferer. They are the chas- 



DEATH. 537 

tisements of a kind father, to bring the disobedient child to re- 
pentance. But if this be true, then the punishments of the 
other world are not a curse, but a blessing. They are evidence, 
not of God's displeasure, but his love. " Whom he loveth he 
chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth " (Heb. 
xii. 6). And to be delivered from these merciful inflictions, at 
least before they shall have accomplished their end, must be, 
not a favor, but an injury. I need not stop to show how op- 
posite these conclusions are to the current representations of the 
Bible, — where the inhabitants of hell are spoken of as under 
the curse of God, — as the objects of his displeasure, his in- 
dignation, his wrath, his vengeance. (See 2 Thess. i. 8,9; 
Jude 7.) 

7. It is involved in the idea of a probation and restoration 
beyond the grave, that sinners suffer, previous to their beiog re- 
stored, all that they deserve. They deserve that measure of suf- 
fering, of discipline, which is necessary in order to bring them 
to repentance. Consequently, when they are brought to repent- 
ance, and thus prepared for a release, they owe nothing further 
to the law. They have paid the uttermost farthing. But on 
this ground, what have they to be forgiven? And for what are 
they indebted to Christ ? And what grace will there be in their 
deliverance and salvation ? No one need be told how entirely 
opposed such a theory is to the spirit and language of the New 
Testament on this subject. If the latter is true, the former 
cannot be. 

8. If there is to be a probation and restoration in the other 
world, it is important to ascertain, if possible, when this is to 
be expected. Is it to be before or after the general judgment? 
That it cannot be before the judgment is obvious from several 
considerations. In the first place, the Scriptures decide that 
between death and the judgment there are to be no important 
changes. "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after 
death, the judgment" (Heb. ix. 27). Then, in the judgment, 
men are to be tried for their actions while in the body ; which 
shows that it was only while in the body that they were on pro- 
bation (2 Cor. v. 10). Besides, in the day of judgment, the 
wicked will be still unreclaimed. This is evident from many 

68 



538 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

passages, 1 — proving that if there is to be a probation between 
death and the judgment, it will be to no good purpose. 

That there will be no probation after the judgment is also 
evident from several considerations. On this ground, it may be 
inquired, in the first place, why there should be any general 
judgment? Why so long preparation for that grand and de- 
cisive scene, if, after all, it is not to be decisive, — if its awards 
are liable to be rescinded or reversed? Then it must be re- 
membered, that immediately following the resurrection and the 
general judgment, Christ resigns his mediatorial office and 
kingdom (1 Cor. xv. 24-28). Of course, there will be no 
further opportunity for the return of sinners to God, at least 
through a Mediator. Accordingly, we find it said, expressly, 
of those who are unjust at the close of the judgment, that they 
shall be unjust still ; and of those who are filthy, that they shall 
be filthy still (Rev. xxii. 11). If there is to be no probation 
and restoration, either before the judgment or after it, it devolves 
on those who believe in a restoration to tell us definitely w T hen 
it shall be. 

9. In opposition to the notion of probation and restoration 
beyond the grave, I urge further, that hell is no place for the 
reformation of offenders. It is the prison of evil spirits ; the 
place "prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. xxv. 41). 
Take all the righteous out of this world, and leave the wicked 
to revel and riot here alone, and what would the state of society 
be? Would any restoring, reforming influence be left? What, 
then, must be the state of society in hell, and w r hat the influence 
exerted there by beings upon each other, where devils and 
damned spirits are crowded together ; where every mouth is 
filled with blasphemy and every heart with sin? Certainly, of 
all places in the universe, hell is the least fitted to bring about 
the conversion of sinners, and promote their return to God. 

10. I only add further, that the idea of a probation beyond 
the grave is contradicted by the general current of Scripture. 
Much that might be said under this head has been anticipated. 
I shall only observe, therefore, that the Scriptures clearly repre- 
sent this life as the seed-time, and the only time in which to 

i See Dan. xii. 2; Matt. xiii. 49 ; xxv. 32-46 ; John v. 29. 



DEATH. . 539 

lay up treasure in heaven (Matt. vi. 20). If we here "sow 
to the flesh, we shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but if we 
sow to the Spirit, we shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting " 
(Gal. vi. 7). The rich man and Lazarus, after death, are 
represented as having their states finally and irrevocably fixed. 
There could be no passing over from the one to the other 
(Luke xvi. 26). There is to be no change of worlds beyond 
the grave ; but every one is to " receive the things done in his 
body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or 
bad" (2 Cor. v. 10). 

Such, certainly, is the plain representation of Scripture in 
regard to this most important subject. And such is the varied, 
abundant, conclusive evidence, that death is to terminate the 
probation of man. "In the place where the tree falleth, there 
it shall be" (Ecc. xi. 3). 

The inquiry often suggests itself to the reflecting mind : Why 
was death commissioned to ravage our world? Why is it, that 
all which is born must die ? 

The procuring cause of death is undoubtedly sin. Although 
temporal death made no part of the original threatening to our 
first parents, and constitutes no part of the proper penalty of 
the law, which is eternal death; still, it is a bitter fruit and 
consequence of sin, and may, with propriety, be regarded in the 
light of a punishment. Had we not been sinners, we should 
not have merited so great an evil, and a just God would not 
have inflicted it. "By one man, sin entered into the world, 
and death by sin" (Rom. v. 12). 

With regard to the final causes of death, or the ends to be 
answered by it, several things may be said. Death is a proper 
and perhaps necessary mode of emptying this world of those 
who have closed their probation in it, and thus making room for 
others who are to follow. Had there been no death, the world 
had long ago been filled with human beings, who could neither 
have lived together, nor destroyed one another. Some mode of 
exchanging worlds was absolutely necessary ; and for sinners 
like ourselves, we can conceive of none more suitable than that 
which Infinite Wisdom has appointed. 

Then death is calculated to teach us important lessons, and 



540 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

promote important moral purposes. It shows us the great evil 
of sin. In the dreadfulness of the effect, — the bitterness of 
the fruit, — we see how dreadful must be the cause that produces 
it. It is of sin that God says, " Oh, do not this abominable 
thing that I hate ! " (Jer. xliv. 4.) 

Death is also fitted to show us the vanity of the world ; to 
wean us from it, and to quicken us in our preparation for eter- 
nal scenes. To all who have ears to hear, the language of death 
is : " Work while the clay lasts. Do with your might what your 
hands find to do. Be ye also ready, since ye know not at what 
hour your Lord doth come e " 



IMMEDIATE COXSEQUEXCES OF DEATH. 541 



LECTUEE LI. 

DDIEDIATE CONSEQUENCES OF DEATH. 

The consequences of death to the human body are too obvious 
to require description. Immediately on the release of the soul, 
the body becomes senseless, lifeless, valueless. It is consigned 
to the grave, and soon moulders back to dust. 

The consequences of death to the soul of man are unspeakably 
more important, and require a more careful consideration. TTe 
have seen that the soul does not sleep in death, either tempo- 
rarily or eternally ; but that, while absent from the body, it 
retains a conscious, active existence. It may be added that it 
retains a substantial existence. In other words, the world of 
spirits is not a world of shadows, but of substantial realities, — 
not less so, certainly, than that in which we now live. 

Spirit is a substance, no less than matter, — a different kind 
of substance, in respect both to its nature and properties ; but 
yet a substance. God is a Spirit, a pure Spirit ; but has he not 
a real, substantial existence, — as real, as substantial, as though 
he were vested in a material form ? Angels, too, are " minister- 
ing spirits " ; yet they are substantial beings , and capable of 
exerting prodigious power. The power of spirit over matter is 
vastly, I had almost said infinitely, greater than that of matter 
over spirit; and all its properties, operations, and effects indi- 
cate for it an existence not less substantial, as I said, than that 
which we ascribe to matter. The world of spirits, then, is a 
world of substantial realities. 

But where is the world of spirits ? When the souls of men 
depart out of this world, and leave their bodies in the dust-, 
where do they go ? Do the righteous ascend at once to heaven, 
and the wicked go down to hell? Or do both classes go to an 



542 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

intermediate place, — to different compartments of the same 
place, — called in the original Scriptures, biara, and fflkjs, and 
there remain together, or very near each other, till the resur- 
rection ? This latter opinion is maintained by some very respect- 
able critics, and is entitled to a careful consideration. 

A principal argument in support of this opinion is drawn 
from the alleged signification of the word &%. In learning the 
signification of this word, we must have a special regard, it is 
said, to its use in the Greek classics, and among the Jews in the 
days of the apostles. But this word came into the New Testa- 
ment, not from the Greek classics, nor from Josephus, but from 
the Septuagint, — where it was introduced as a translation of the 
corresponding Hebrew word bianp. ; a word too ancient to receive 
modification from any classical or contemporaneous authors 
whose names have come down to us. From this account of the 
matter it might be presumed that the word «<% would be used 
in the Scriptures in a somewhat peculiar sense ; and so, I think, 
we find it. And its signification must be gathered, not from 
classic and Jewish authors, but from the book of God. 

But it is said that the words bias? and «<% are used in the 
Scriptures to signify a nether world, an intermediate place, into 
which the spirits of both good and bad men depart at death, 
and where they are kept until the day of judgment. In reply, 
I observe that the words in question are used by the sacred 
writers to signify the grave, — the resting-place of the bodies of 
both the righteous and the wicked. They are also used to sig- 
nify hell, — the abode of miserable spirits. But they are never 
used, so far as I have been able to discover, to signify the abode 
of the righteous, either before the resurrection or after it. 

In by far the greater number of instances, the word bias? is 
used in the Old Testament, to signify the grave, or the place of 
sepulture, and is properly so rendered by our translators. 1 But 
as the grave is regarded by most persons, and was more espe- 
cially so by the ancients, with awe and dread, as being the region 
of solitude, gloom, and darkness, so the word denoting it soon 
came to be applied to that more dark and fearful world which is 
to be the abode of the miserable forever. Numerous passages 

1 See Gen. xxxvii. 35 ; xlii. 38 ; 1 Sam. ii. 6 ; 1 Kings ii. 6 ; Job xiv. 13 ; xvii. 13-16. 



IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES OF DEATH. 543 

to this effect are found in the Old Testament. " A fire is kin- 
dled in mine anger, which shall burn to the lowest hell " (Deut. 
xxxii. 22) . "It is high as heaven, what canst thou do ? Deeper 
than hell, what canst thou know?" (Job xi. 8). "If I ascend 
up in to heaven, thou art there. If I make my bed in hell, behold, 
thou art there" (Ps. cxxxix. 8). "Though they dig into hell, 
thence shall my hand take them ; though they climb up to heaven, 
thence will I bring them down" (Amos ix. 3). In these pas- 
sages, ^iwrj stands in a direct contrast with heaven. Of course, 
it must mean hell, and is properly so rendered by our transla- 
tors. 

Other Scriptures may be cited which are equally decisive : 
" The wicked shall be turned into hell, with all the nations that 
forget God" (Ps. ix. 17). The hell, the biaffl here spoken of, 
certainly is not the grave, nor is it any other place into which 
the righteous go. "The wicked shall be turned into hell," etc. 
" Thou shalt beat him (the unruly child) with the rod, and shalt 
deliver his soul from hell." Not from the grave, certainly ; nor 
from any nether world into which both the righteous and the 
wicked go ; but from hell, — the miserable abode of the wicked 
(Prov. xxiii. 14). 

In the New Testament, <2<% is used much as JiiwD is in the Old, 
except that in a less proportion of cases it signifies the grave. 

Still there are instances in which the Word is used in this sense, 
as " O grave, where is thy victory ! " ( 1 Cor. xv. 55) . In general, 
however, the &'<% of the New Testament is no other than the 
world of future misery. " Thou Capernaum, which art exalted 
unto heaven, shall be brought down to hell." " On this rock 
will I build my church, and the gates of hell (the powers of the 
world below) shall not prevail against it " (Matt. xi. 23 ; xvi. 18). 
When the rich man died and was buried, " in hell he lifted up 
his eyes being in torments " (Luke xvi. 23). I know it is said 
that he was in the lower Tartarian part of a<% and that Abra- 
ham and Lazarus were in the upper part ; and it is urged in 
proof of this that they were sufficiently near each other to hold 
conversation. But what evidence have we that Abraham and 
Lazarus were in a<% at all? The Scriptures do not say so, and 
the supposition is wholly gratuitous. The supposed division of 



544 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

this place into the two apartments of Paradise and Tartarus is 
of heathen, and not of Christian origin. We have no trace or 
intimation of it in the Bible. The fact that Abraham and the 
rich man were in circumstances to speak to each other, no more 
proves that they were in different apartments of the same place 
or world, than does the fact that God and angels are often rep- 
resented as speaking out of heaven to men, proves that earth and 
heaven are the same world. Without doubt, spirits can see each 
other, and hold conversation, at much greater distances than 
would be possible to us. We certainly know that the rich man 
and Lazarus were widely and eternally separated. The former 
"lifted up his eyes, being in torments," and saw the latter 
"afar off." There was an impassable gulf betwixt them, — wide 
enough to sever between the everlasting abodes of the righteous 
and the wicked, — between heaven and hell. 

I have said that neither irmo nor a<% is ever used in the Scrip- 
tures to signify the abode of the spirits of the just. In opposi- 
tion to this statement, one passage and only one, can with any 
plausibility be adduced. David says, " Thou wilt not leave my 
soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see cor- 
ruption" (Ps. xvi. 10). The Apostle Peter, having quoted this 
passage, and applied it to Christ, goes on to assure us that David 
here " spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not 
left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption" (Acts ii. 31). 
We have, then, in this verse from the Psalms, a poetical predic- 
tion of the resurrection of Christ, and nothing else. The pre- 
diction is expressed, after the manner of the Hebrew poets, in a 
parallelism ; the whole import of which is, that Christ was to be 
raised from the dead, and raised speedily. His life was not to 
be left in the grave ; his flesh was not to see corruption. 1 The 
bias? and a<% in this passage, properly signify the grave, the 
sepulchre, out of which Christ was raised, and not the world of 
future spirits. 

Since this passage is the only one on which the semblance of an 
argument can be founded, that the words in question are ever 
used, in the Scriptures, to denote the world of happy spirits ; 

i The Hebrew word IpM, nere translated soul, properly signifies breath, life, the vital 
principle. 



IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES OF DEATH. 545 

and since, properly interpreted, they have no such meaning 
here, I am warranted' in affirming that they have it nowhere. 
They signify, primarily, the grave, the place of the dead body ; 
and, secondarily, the world of miserable spirits ; but never the 
future abode of the righteous. Of course, no argument can be 
drawn from these words, to show that the souls of the righteous, 
when they leave the body, go into &%, and not to heaven. 

Another argument for <2<%, or the intermediate place, is de- 
rived from certain Scriptures in which " things under the earth " 
are represented as doing homage to the Saviour. " That at the 
name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and 
things on earth, and things under the earth" (Phil. xxi. 10). 
The " things under the earth " are supposed to be the souls of 
departed saints, who are shut up somewhere in the bowels of 
the earth, and who, from those deep caverns, are sending up a 
spiritual worship to the Saviour. But a comparison of passages 
will show that the time when every knee shall bow to Christ is 
the day of judgment. " We shall all stand before the judgment- 
seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every 
knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God" 
(Kom. xiv. 10). In the great day of judgment, every creature 
will do homage of some sort — willing or unwilling — to the 
Saviour. But then the bodies of the saints will have been raised, 
and the intermediate region, if there be any, will be deserted. 
Another passage of the same class is the following : " And every 
creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the 
earth, and in the sea, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and 
glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and 
unto the Lamb, forever and ever" (Rev. v. 13). This grand 
chorus of praise the holy apostle heard sung in heaven ; and 
every creature in heaven united in it, — even those who had left 
their bodies to moulder and dissolve on the surface of the earth, 
or under the earth, or in the sea. But the passage, thus inter- 
preted, not only does not prove an intermediate place, it proves 
the contrary. It proves that the souls of the righteous dead 
were, at the time of the vision, in heaven, standing before the 
throne, and singing praises to God and the Lamb. 

Another passage, often appealed to in proof of the interme- 

69 



546 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

cliate place, is that in which Christ is said to have gone and 
"preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Pet. iii. 19). But who 
were these "spirits in prison"? Not the holy dead; nor, as 
some have supposed, the virtuous heathen ; but the impious 
antediluvians, who were disobedient in the days of Noah, and 
perished in the flood. This is indubitable, from the passage 
itself. And how did Christ preach to these spirits in prison? 
Not in person, but by his Spirit, — the Holy Spirit, — that Spirit 
by the operation of which his lifeless body had been raised from 
the dead. " Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the 
Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in 
prison." And when was this preaching by the Spirit accom- 
plished? Not while Christ's lifeless body lay in the tomb, but 
"when once the long-suffering of God waited, in the days 
of Noah, while the ark was preparing." It was during this 
period that Christ preached by his Spirit, inspiring and assisting 
Noah, to those who, in Peter's time, were "spirits in prison,"— 
spirits shut up in the prison of hell. Such is the obvious import 
of this vexed passage of Scripture ; and, thus interpreted, it goes 
not a step towards proving the doctrine of an intermediate 
place. 

It is further urged, in proof of an intermediate place, that the 
Scriptures represent the happiness of the righteous as not com- 
plete until after the resurrection. The fact here alleged is ad- 
mitted ; but the conclusion drawn from it is denied. It does 
not follow, because the happiness of the righteous is not com- 
plete until after the resurrection, that previously their souls are 
imprisoned in £'<%, down in the centre of the earth. On sup- 
position that they go to heaven at death, without doubt their hap- 
piness will be increased, when they shall have received their 
glorified bodies from the dust, and entered on the full rewards 
of eternity. 

Again, it is insisted that the early Christian fathers believed 
in the doctrine of an intermediate place. It is admitted that 
such was the belief of many of the fathers, more especially those 
of the East. It may be accounted for, too, that such should 
have been their belief, without supposing them to have derived 
it from the apostles. They were in continual controversy with 



IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES OF DEATH. 547 

the Gnostics, who undervalued the body, considered it as the 
grand corrupter of the soul, and denied altogether its resurrec- 
tion. This led those fathers to think and say much of the res- 
urrection of the body and to represent the soul as in a very im- 
perfect condition — in abditis receptaoulis vel in exterioribus 
atriis — while the body was entombed. We know, too, what 
was the effect of this error on the minds of those fathers who 
adopted it. It led them early to institute prayers for the dead, 
and resulted, after a time, in the superstitions and abominations 
of purgatory. 

We have now examined the principal arguments in favor of 
an intermediate place, and find them far from being satisfactory. 
They fail essentially in establishing the point for which they 
are adduced. 

Let us now look at the arguments on the other side, — those 
which are urged to show that the souls of the righteous, at 
death, go immediately to heaven ; and those of the wicked, to 
hell. In doing this, we shall not attempt to fix the locality of 
either of these places. Suffice it to say, that by heaven we 
understand the place which John saw in vision on the isle of 
Patmos, — where is Christ and his holy angels, — where is the 
throne of God and the Lamb. And by hell, we understand the 
prison of lost souls, — the place "prepared for the devil and his 
angels" (Matt. xxv. 41). 

We commence with showing that at death, the souls of the 
righteous go immediately to heaven. 

1. As much as this seems to have been indicated to the an- 
cient patriarchs, in the promise of Canaan. These patriarchs 
regarded the earthly Canaan as an emblem, a type of the heav- 
enly Canaan. In the promises of an earthly inheritance, they 
read their title to a better country, even a heavenly. So we 
are assured by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 
xi. 14-16). And where did they think this heavenly Canaan 
lay? Directly across the Jordan, the cold river of death. As 
the literal Jordan, and that alone, separated them from the 
earthly Canaan ; so, when the river of death was past, they ex- 
pected to enter, at once, into heaven. Nor were they disap- 
pointed. They have gone to heaven. They are spoken of in 



548 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

the Scriptures as those who "through faith and patience, now 
inherit the promises" (Heb. vi. 12). 

2. Our Saviour's declaration to the dying thief, "This day 
shalt thou be with me in Paradise," is proof enough that the 
souls of believers go immediately from this world to heaven. 
We know it is said that Paradise is in &%, — the upper and 
better part of 5<%. But it is certain, from the Scriptures, that 
Paradise has no connection with &%. It is heaven, — the third 
heaven, — where is the throne of God and the Lamb. Of 
what, we ask, was the earthly Paradise, where grew the literal 
tree of life, the symbol, the emblem? Not of the better part 
of &%, if it has any better part, but of heaven, — where grows 
the tree of life above. The Apostle Paul was once "caught up 
into the third heaven," — " into Paradise," where he heard un- 
speakable words (2 Cor. xii. 2, 4). No person, I am sure, could 
ever have regarded the apostle, in this passage, as referring to 
two visions, and two different places, under the names " third 
heaven" and "Paradise," unless he had first got his notions of 
Paradise from some foreign source, and then felt it necessary to 
break in the passage, that it might correspond with his pre- 
conceived views. The "Paradise" of Paul, and "the third 
heaven," are undoubtedly the same place; — the same which 
our Saviour promised to the dying thief; — the same into which 
he receives all his faithful people, as soon as they leave the 
present world. 

3. The case of Moses and Elias, on the mount of transfigura- 
tion, has an important bearing on the question before us. Moses 
died and was buried. Elijah was taken to heaven without dy- 
ing. They both appeared in glory on the mount of transfigu- 
ration. And now the question is, Did they both come to the 
mount from the same heavenly place ? That Elijah came from 
heaven, no one can doubt; and is it possible for any one to 
doubt that Moses came with him, — came from the same heaven, 
where they had long been glorified together ? 

4. Another case, bearing on the question before us, is that of 
Stephen. Just before his death, he saw the heavens opened, 
and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." And 
he prayed saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts vii. 



IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES OF DEATH. 549 

59). Who can believe that this prayer was rejected ; and that 
Stephen, instead of being received up to heaven, was sent away 
into udi]g there to be imprisoned for thousands of years? 

5. The Apostle Paul represents the whole church of God as 
being, at present, in heaven or on earth. " Of whom the whole 
family in heaven and earth is named" (Eph. iii. 15). But, ac- 
cording to the doctrine we are considering, a vast proportion of 
this redeemed family are neither in heaven nor on earth, but in 
adrjg, — the dark, sequestered prison of disembodied souls. 

6. We are taught, also, by the same apostle, that in the city of 
the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, there dwell, not only 
God the Judge of all, and Jesus the Mediator of the new cove- 
nant, and an innumerable company of angels, but the spirits of 
just men made perfect (Heb. xii. 21-24) . All are represented 
as dwelling together in the same holy, happy place ; — a testi- 
mony sufficient of itself to settle this whole question. 

7. In various places in Paul's epistles the souls of the right- 
eous, while absent from the body, are represented as being with 
Christ in heaven. " We know that if our earthly house of this 
tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house 
not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." In other words, 
we know that when the body dies, the soul will go at once to 
heaven (2 Cor. v. 1) . " We are willing rather to be absent from 
the body, and present with the Lord ; " that is, in heaven (2 Cor. 
v. 8). Paul says again, "I am in a strait betwixt two, having a 
desire to depart, and to be with Christ," that is, in heaven, 
w which is far better" (Phil. i. 23). And again he says : " Who 
died for us, that whether we wake or sleep" (live or die) "we 
should live together with him " — in heaven (1 Thess. v. 10). 

It will be said, perhaps, that Christ may be, in some sense, 
in udjjg, and that Paul expected to be with him there. And 
so Christ is, in some sense, with his people here on earth; 
and Paul need have been in no strait betwixt living and dying, 
in order that he might be, in some sense, with Christ. But 
could Paul have been, where he desired to be, in the personal 
presence of the glorified God-man and Mediator, and not have 
been in heaven? Could he have gone to that building of God, 
that "house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens," and 



550 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

still not have been in heaven ? Surely, there can be no question 
here. 

8. The beloved disciple, in his visions on the isle of Patmos, 
saw, in a great many instances, " the spirits of the just made 
perfect," and they were always in heaven. It was these which 
sang that new song, " Thou art worthy to take the book, and 
to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast re- 
deemed us unto God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and 
tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. v. 9). On another 
occasion, John " saw a great multitude which no man could 
number, of all nations, and kindred, and people, and tongues n 
(of course, gathered from the earth), "standing before the 
throne of God, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, 
and with palms in their hands" (Rev. vii. 9). On still another 
occasion, John saw "the Lamb standing on mount Zion, and 
with him an hundred and forty and four thousand " redeemed 
ones, "and they sung a new song," which no beings in heaven 
could learn or sing, except themselves (Rev. xiv. 1-3). At 
another time, John saw in heaven " the souls of them that had 
been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which 
they held " (Rev. vi. 9). We might quote many other passages 
from this wonderful book, proving, as certainly as that there 
is any heaven, that the souls of redeemed saints are there. 

In reply to all this, it has been said, that the place described 
above, where the spirits of the just surround the eternal throne, 
and sing the new song of redeeming mercy, is only the better 
part of £<%. But to this I answer, if the upper region of 
&8rjg is such a place as is described in the Revelation, I have no 
objection to the thing itself, but only to the bad name by which 
it is called. For this, surely, is a bad name. It is the name, 
uniformly, of a bad place. The cold, dark grave is the best 
place to which it is ever applied in the Scriptures. In the 
New Testament, it is commonly used to set forth the prison 
of despair. Why should the blessed abodes of the righteous 
in the other world be designated by such a name ? 

But the place described by Paul, in his Epistles, and by John, 
in the Revelation, is no part of u<%. It is heaven. If there be 
any heaven in the universe, it is here. It is " a house not made 



IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES OF DEATH. 551 

with hands, eternal in the heavens." It- is the abode of "an 
innumerable company of angels." It is near the throne of God 
and the Lamb. It is repeatedly and expressly called heaven by 
the Apostle John. In the commencement of his vision, he saw 
a door opened, not in &%, but in heaven. And the vision 
throughout is a heavenly vision, in which the glorified spirits of 
the just are represented as mingling freely with angels, with 
Jehovah, and the Lamb. 

But it is time that we turn to the other part of the subject, 
and show-, in few words, that the souls of the wicked, at death, 
go immediately to hell, — the place prepared for the devil and 
his angels. It is admitted, by the advocates of the intermed- 
iate place, that the souls of the wicked, when they leave the 
body, go immediately into punishment ; but the place of their 
punishment, previous to the resurrection, is not hell. It is 
Tartarus, the lower and more miserable part of ud?jg. But it is 
certain from the Scriptures that Tartarus is hell, — the very 
prison of the devils, — the place prepared for their confinement 
and punishment. So it is represented in the only place in the 
New Testament where mention is made of Tartarus. "God 
spared not the angels that sinned, but Tuoragchaag having cast 
them down to Tartarus, he delivered them into chains of dark- 
ness, to be reserved unto judgment" (2 Pet. ii. 4). Here, 
then, is that place prepared for the devil" and his angels, into 
which the wicked of our race are to be plunged at the close of 
the last judgment. "Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, 
prepared for the devil and his angels " (Matt. xxv. 41) . Beyond 
all question, this place is hell, — the hell of the New Testament. 
And if it still be insisted that this is in &%, I admit it ; for &% 
is hell, — in the sense in which our Saviour and his apostles 
commonly used the term. In two or three instances they em- 
ployed it to signify the grave ; but much more frequently to 
denote the prison of devils and damned souls ; in which case, it 
has the same meaning, substantially, as Tartarus and Gehenna, 
and is, with the utmost propriety, rendered hell. 

Whether the righteous and the wicked, after the judgment, 
will go to precisely the same localities in which they were before 
placed, it is not material to inquire. But both before and after 



552 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

the judgment, the righteous will be in the same place with the 
glorified Saviour, and his holy angels ; and this will be heaven. 
And before and after the judgment, the wicked will be in the 
place prepared for the devil and his angels ; and this will be 
hell. It may be added, too, that both before and after the 
judgment, heaven and hell will not be the same place, nor dif- 
ferent parts of the same general region ; but will be widely and 
eternally separated the one from the other. 

I have thus examined, in as few words as possible, the ques- 
tion of an intermediate place, and find no foundation for it in 
the word of God. It is of heathen and not Christian origin, 
and better becomes a believer in the mythology of Greece and 
Rome than a disciple of the Saviour. I regard the theory, too, 
as of dangerous influence. Could it be generally received by 
evangelical Christians, it would be followed, I have no doubt, 
in a little time, with prayers for the dead, and with the doctrine 
of a future probation and restoration, — perhaps, with all the 
superstitions of purgatory. This is the course which things 
took in the ancient church, and in all probability they would 
take the sUme again. Let us, then, "hold fast the form of 
sound words " on this subject, — the words of Scripture, and of 
most of our Protestant confessions of faith, — and not be " driven 
about by every wind of doctrine." 

There are several other questions, connected with the subject 
before us, which demand attention, but which may be disposed 
of in few words. It has been asked whether the disembodied 
soul passes through any trial or judgment previous to the resur- 
rection. That it does, is intimated in several Scriptures, and is 
in accordance with the common apprehension of Christians. 
Thus we speak of a person, when dead, as having gone with his 
account to God . The truth of the matter seems to be this : 
The soul, immediately on leaving the body, wakes up to a full 
consciousness of its character and state. It may have been 
asleep before, but it is awake now. It perceives clearly and at 
once what manner of spirit it is of, and for what world it is 
destined. By going with its account to God, we are not to 
understand that it goes into a visible court, or before a literal 
judgment-seat. God is present everywhere ; and the moment 



IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES OF DEATH. . 553 

the soul leaves the body it is made fully conscious of the divine 
presence, and conscious of its own character and destiny. It 
is judged, at once, in the presence of God. It judges itself, 
passes sentence upon itself, and (under the convoy of angels, 
perhaps) enters at once upon its award, either of happiness or 
misery. A judgment such as this does not at all interfere with, 
or supersede the necessity of, a general judgment ; as we shall 
see, when we come upon that subject. 

It may be inquired again, whether departed spirits recognize 
each other, and renew former acquaintance and intercourse, in 
the future World. That they may and do, is very evident from 
Scripture. Did not Moses and Elias know each other, when 
they appeared on the mount of transfiguration ? • Are not Abra- 
ham, and the rich man and Lazarus, represented as perfectly 
knowing each other ? The deceased kings of the earth are rep- 
resented as knowing the king of Babylon,, and as taunting 
over him, when he came down to join them in the world below 
(Is. xiv. 10-20). The souls of the martyrs, under the heavenly 
altar, undoubtedly knew each other, and sympathized in each 
other's joys (Rev. vi. 10). Indeed, the fact about which we 
here inquire seems rather to be taken for granted, than directly 
asserted, in the various representations of Scripture on the sub- 
ject. And this, certainly, is a very interesting fact. How 
much will it add to the happiness of heaven, for spirits in that 
world to know each other ; and there to renew former acquaint- 
ance and joys ! While it will add as much to the miseries of 
the wicked, in the world below, that they are obliged to know 
each other, and to be the accusers and tormentors one of another 
forever. 

Still another inquiry may be, whether departed spirits have 
any means of becoming acquainted with what is transacted here 
on the earth. I cannot doubt that they have such means. They 
may keep up a direct intercourse with earth ; though in regard 
to this, the Scriptures afford us no positive information. But 
it is certain that the angels, both the holy and the fallen, have 
much to do in this world. They know what is transpiring here, 
and may carry intelligence to the world of spirits. It is certain, 
also, that multitudes are constantly going from this world to 

70 



554 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

that, who may carry intelligence. At any rate, spirits in the 
other world are represented as knowing, to some extent, what 
is transacted here. The repentance of a sinner is quickly known 
in heaven, and spreads a new tide of joy over all the myriads 
congregated there. The souls under the altar knew that their 
blood had not, at that time, been avenged on their persecutors. 
The rich man in hell knew that his five brethren were still liv- 
ing, and that they were likely to follow him to that place of 
torment. Indeed, it is not unlikely that spirits in the other 
world feel a deep interest in the transactions of earth, — especially 
in those transactions which relate more directly to the kingdom 
of Christ, — and kept up an intimate acquaintance with them. 

In conceiving of the enjoyments and sufferings of departed 
souls, we must, of course, separate from them all that is cor- 
poreal, sensual, or animal, leaving only such as are, in their 
nature, adapted to the capacities of disembodied spirits. The 
investigation and discovery of truth, the approbation of con- 
science, pleasing recollections and anticipations, the society of 
the blessed, the presence of Christ, communion with God, and 
a heart full to overflowing of holy love ; such are some of the 
sources of happiness to the spirits of the just made perfect in 
heaven ;— while the opposite of these are sources of anguish to 
spirits lost. Tortures of conscience ; painful recollections and 
forebodings ; the unrestrained indulgence of the most hateful 
passions, such as malice, envy, revenge, and rage ; mutual 
criminations and blasphemies ; and the blackness of despair ; — 
all these things, and others like them, are the portion of the 
wicked, and go to fill up the bitterness of their cup. It is per- 
fectly obvious that the miseries of lost spirits, though not in 
that world corporeal, may be intense. A tossed, wounded, 
agonized spirit, who can bear? 



RESURRECTION OF TEtE DEAD. 555 



LECTUEE LIL 

RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 

The doctrine of the resurrection has respect rather to the 
body than the soul. The soul of man is strictly immortal. It 
does not die. Of course, it cannot be raised from the dead. 
It is the body which becomes inert and lifeless in the moment of 
dissolution. It is this which "returns to the earth, as it was." 
But we are taught in the Scriptures that the body shall not 
always sleep in the dust. The hour is coming when the slum- 
bering, mouldering body shall be reanimated, — when soul and 
body shall be again united to part no more. 

But is the same body which died to be raised up ? Or, in the 
resurrection, are we to have different bodies ? To this I answer, 
that — in common, popular language, such as the inspired writ- 
ers are accustomed to use on all subjects — the raised body is to 
be the same as that which died. This, however, does not imply 
strict identity of substance, or that the particles raised are pre- 
cisely the same — no more and no less — than those which were 
laid down in death. This is not implied in identity of body, 
as the terms are commonly used among men. I pass a huge 
rock, or a high mountain, which I had occasion to pass some 
years ago. I call it the same rock and the same mountain ; 
and I speak the truth. As language is commonly used and 
understood, it is the same. Yet who would venture to affirm 
that there had been no accretions, no diminutions, no change of 
particles whatever? 

The identity here is that of general appearance, conformation, 
and locality. The term is used with still greater latitude, and 
is applied on a somewhat different principle, in reference to 
living, organized bodies. I look at a plant in my garden, soon 



556 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

after its appearance above the ground. I notice it again, after 
some weeks, when its size is increased many fold. I call it the 
same plant, and I speak truly. It is so. I set out a tree, by 
the roadside, when it is a mere sapling. I watch its growth, 
from year to year^till it becomes a tall shade. I think and 
speak of it, all the while, as the same tree ; and I speak truly. 
It is the same. But how so? On what principle is identity 
predicated here ? Not that there has been no change'of par- 
ticles ; for there has been a great change, — perhaps a total 
change. Not that there is the same general appearance and 
conformation ; for these may have entirely changed. The chief 
ground on which identity is here predicated seems to be this : 
There is the same vital, animating principle, which, amid all the 
changes through which the plant or tree has passed, has been 
constantly at work, drawing together nutriment from the atmos- 
phere and earth, and building up a body for itself; and in pop- 
ular language, such as every one uses and understands, it is the 
same body. 

This use of language applies, not only to vegetables, but ani- 
mals. I have the same horse that I had a year ago. He has 
the same head, and feet, and color, and bones, and skin. No 
one understands, however, from this, that there has been no 
change, during the year, in the material of the creature's body. 
There has been a change, — a great change. But the animating 
principle remaining the same, and supplying, by its regular 
operation, the wastes that have been constantly going on, the 
body of the animal — in the common, popular use of terms — has 
been, and is, the same. 

So I have myself the same body that I had ten years ago, — 
not the same particles throughout, — perhaps not one of them ; 
but yet, in common language (which is the language of Scrip- 
ture) the same. 

It is on this principle, mainly, that I suppose the resurrection 
body will be the same with that which was laid down in death ; 
—not strictly and universally the same substance, and yet truly 
and properly — as words are used and understood — the same 
body. 

I am aware that some divines believe there is a part of the 



RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 557 

human body which is never changed, not even between death 
and the resurrection ; — that a portion of the identical substance 
which belongs to the body at death, rises with it in the final 
day. Whether this be so, or not, I pretend not to say. It 
would be impossible, I am sure, to prove the contrary. Still, I 
do not think it necessary to establish such an hypothesis in order 
to prove the identity of the raised body. If the animating 
principle is the same in the resurrection that it was in death 
(which no one doubts), and if its powers are then successfully 
exerted to draw to itself a body ; the body which it receives 
will be, to all intents and uses, the same body that it once had. 
The man will know it to be the same, just as I know my body 
is the same that it was years ago. It # will be recognized and 
acknowledged by others to be the same: In popular language, 
which, I repeat, is the language of the Bible, it is the same. 

This view of the identity of the raised body is precisely that 
(if I understand him) of the Apostle Paul. He asserts, repeat- 
edly and most expressly, that it is to be trie same body. The 
same it that is sown in corruption, dishonor, and weakness is 
to be raised in incorruption, in glory, and in power. The same 
it that is sown a natural body is to be raised a spiritual body. 
And yet the apostle plainly teaches that there is to be some 
change of particles, of substance. "Thou sowest not that body 
that shall be, but bare* grain, it may chance of wheat, or of 
some other grain. But God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased 
him ; and to every seed his own body" (1 Cor.'xv. 3?-44). I 
know not how to understand the whole representation of the 
apostle in this chapter, without supposing that strict identity of 
substance is not essential, in popular language, to identity of 
body. 

It should be further remarked that the raised body, though, 
in the sense explained, the same that died, wil], not be raised 
in the same state or condition. This would not be, in most 
cases, desirable. Myriads of the human family die in mere 
infancy. But it would not be desirable for them to receive 
infant bodies from the tomb, and be united to them forever. 
The bodies of some are shockingly mutilated ; others are crip- 
pled and deformed. The bodies of most people who die by 



558 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

disease, become unnaturally bloated or fearfully emaciated before 
they leave the world. Now, it would not be desirable for the 
saints to rise in this state, and continue in it through all the 
endless years of heaven. Their bodies, it is said, are to "be 
raised in glory," and to " be fashioned like unto Christ's glorious 
body." I incline to the opinion, that, in whatever condition 
believers may have laid down their bodies, they will, receive 
them in maturity and perfection ; — not dwarfed in infancy, nor 
crippled with age, nor bloated or emaciated with disease ; but 
such, as to appearance and comeliness, as they would have 
been in their most mature and perfect state. 

The raised body will also be greatly changed as to properties*. 
It will be not a gross body of flesh and blood, but ethereal and 
incorruptible. It will be in the language of the apostle, "a 
spiritual body." This does not imply that it will be spirit, and 
not matter. It will still be a material body ; but the matter of 
it will be so changed as to its properties, so sublimated and 
refined, so adapted to the embrace and use of an immortal spirit, 
that it may properly be termed 'a " spiritual body." 

By the explanations of the resurrection which have been 
given, we avoid the common objections which are urged 
against it. The first and principal of these grows out of the 
continual change which is going on in our present bodies, con- 
necting the same particles often with different bodies, and ren- 
dering it impossible that the identical substance, which consti- 
tutes our bodies at death, should in all cases enter into them 
in the resurrection at the last day. But to the doctrine of the 
resurrection, as above explained, this, obviously, is no objection. 
"We have seen that strict and universal identity of substance is 
not necessary to identity of body. Identity of body, at least 
in the common acceptation of the terms, does not require it. 
The sameness of which the Scriptures speak is based on quite 
another principle. 

But it is said, if there is not identity of substance, then the 
deceased body and the raised body are two different things. 
There is no relation of sameness between them. It is like a 
man's receiving a new coat when the old one is worn out, and 
has been for some time laid aside. But to this it is enough to 



EESUERECTIOtf OF THE DEAD. 559 

reply that a man's body is not a coat, nor is his coat a body. 
The body of a man is an integral part of himself, — sustained 
and animated by his life, and quickened by his soul and spirit. 
And the raised body belongs to the same spirit, and is animated 
by the same, as before. It constitutes a part, and an important 
part, of the same person. In strict propriety, therefore, as 
terms are used, it may be denominated the same body. 

Having now explained the doctrine of the resurrection, and 
in so doing freed it from the more common objections which are 
urged against it, I proceed to the proof of the doctrine itself. 
It is obvious that this must be drawn wholly from the Scrip- 
tures. Reason teaches the immortality of the soul, but not the 
resurrection of the body. Of course, mere reason has nothing 
to say against it ; and some analogies may be drawn from rea- 
son and nature, showing that the doctrine is not improbable. 
Still, the doctrine is one which the mere light of nature does 
not teach,* and of which those who have had no other light have, 
in all ages, been ignorant. In proof of this doctrine I remark, — 

1. That it is taught in the Old Testament. It may be pre- 
sumed that the resurrection is taught in the Old Testament, 
from the fact that the Jews, or the better part of them, in the 
time of Christ, were firm believers in it ; and they could have 
learned it from no other source. But let us look into the Old 
Testament itself. Job says, "I know that my Redeemer liveth, 
and that he shall stand at the latter da/" upon the earth ; and 
though, after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh 
shall I see God ; whom I shall see myself, and mine eyes 
shall behold, and not another, though my reins be consumed 
within me" (Job xix. 23-27). This I allow, is, in the original, 
an obscure passage, and one that will admit of another render- 
ing. But the question is not, what rendering may be put upon 
it, but what is the most natural and obvious signification of the 
words. And this, I undertake to say, is substantially that which 
our translators have given. The connection also shows that this 
is the true rendering. In the introduction to the passage, we 
see that Job is about to enunciate something: which he deems of 
vast importance to the world ; — something which must be most 
ineffaceably written, which must go down to the coming ages, 



560 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. ■ 

which must never be forgotten. " O that my words were now 
written ? O that they were printed in a book ! That they were 
graven with an iron pen, and lead, in the rock forever !" What 
now is the rapt seer and prophet about to say ? What that is 
worthy to follow an introduction such as this ? Is he merely 
about to tell us that he expects to be cured of his boils, to be a 
well man again, and that some one will at length arise to vindi- 
cate his character? Is this all? Or is he abotit to say what, 
with his eye fixed upon the distant and glorious future, he 
actually does say : " I know that my Eedeemer hveth, and that 
he shall stand, at the latter day, upon the earth; and though, 
after my skin, worms destroy this body., yet in my flesh shall I 
see God"? To my own mind, there can be no question here. 
Our translators have given us the true idea. And the passage 
is a valid and glorious proof, not only of the future coming of 
Christ, but of the resurrection from the dead. 

The doctrine of the resurrection is repeatedly brcfught into 
view in the Psalms: "Therefore, my heart is glad, and my 
glory rejoiceth ; my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou 
wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine 
Holy One to see corruption" (Ps. xvi. 9, 10). This passage is 
quoted by the Apostle Peter, as being fulfilled in the resurrec- 
tion of Christ (Acts ii. 26). Again the Psalmist says: "But 
God shall redeem me from the power of the grave ; for he shall 
receive me" (Ps. xlix?»15). In the prophets, we have passages 
such as these : "Thy dead men shall live; together with my 
dead body they shall arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in 
dust ; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs ; and the earth shall 
cast out the dead" (Is. xxix. 19). "I will ransom thee from 
the power of the grave ; I will redeem thee from death. O 
death, I will be thy plague ! O grave, I will be thy destruction ! " 
(Hos. xiii. 6.) "Many," or the many, the multitude, "that 
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting 
life, and so meto shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan. xii. 
2). In view of these and other like passages, it is not strange 
that the more enlightened Jews, in the time of Christ, should 
have believed in the resurrection of the body. We see not how 



, RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 561 

they could honestly have disbelieved it, or been in ignorance or 
doubt respecting it. 

2. The most prominent fact of the New Testament, bearing 
directly on the question before us, is the resurrection of Christ. 
That Christ was literally raised from the dead on the third day 
after his crucifixion, I need not now stop to prove. This fact 
was denied by the Gnostics in the primitive age, and is denied 
by some in our own times. But this denial is a flat contradic- 
tion of; the Scriptures. If anything can be proved from the 
testimony of the apostles, it is that Christ was literally raised 
from the dead. But if Christ rose from the dead, then his peo- 
ple will rise also. This the Apostle Paul not only asserts, but 
argues at considerable length. "Now is Christ risen from the 
dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept." " Christ 
the first fruits ; afterwards, they that are Christ's at his coming" 
(1 Cor. xv. 20). The resurrection of Christ proves, not only 
the possibility and desirableness of a resurrection, but the cer- 
tainty of it to all his people. As the head of the body is risen, 
it cannot be doubted that, in due time, the members will rise 
also. 

3. Another fact bearing on the question before us is the rising 
of those saints who came forth from their graves at the resurrec- 
tion of Christ. At the time of Christ's death, we are told that 
"the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were 
opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and 
came out of their graves after his resurrection, and went into 
the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matt, xxvii. 52). 
There was a literal resurrection of the bodies of the saints. 
Their tombs were opened by the -earthquake at the death of 
Christ, and they came out of them immediately after his resur- 
rection. They rose with their divine Lord, as a kind of first 
fruits from the dead ; as an earnest and pledge of that general 
resurrection which shall at length be accomplished by his power. 

4. Our Saviour taught, in the plainest terms, the resurrection 
of tjie body. "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in 
their graves shall hear his voice and come forth, they that have 
done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done 
evil unto the resurrection of damnation" (John v. 28, 29). 

71 



562 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

" This is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which 
he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up 
again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, 
that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may 
have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day " 
(John vi. 39, 40). " Verily, verily I say unto you, the hour is 
coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the 
Son of man, and they that hear shall live " (John v. 25). "If 
thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee ; 
for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, 
and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if 
thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee ; for 
it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, 
and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" (Matt. v. 
29, 30). "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able 
to kill the soul ; but rather fear him which is able to destroy 
both body and soul in hell" (Matt. x. 28). In both these pas- 
sages the bodies of the wicked are represented as to be cast into 
hell. Of course their bodies must be raised, or the declaration 
cannot be fulfilled. 

I need not quote more of our Saviour's words in proof of the 
point under consideration. His language is so plain and explicit 
that there is no possible way of getting over it, but by suppos- 
ing him to have temporized in the matter, in accommodation to 
the prejudices of the Jews. 

5. Let us now consider the testimony of Paul as to the res- 
urrection of the body. That Paul preached what he called the 
resurrection is" on all sides admitted ; but then some think that 
he meant by it no more than the doctrine of immortality,— the 
immortality of the soul. But that this cannot be true is evi- 
dent from two considerations. In the first place, the immor- 
tality of the soul is not a fruit, a consequence, of the mediation 
of Christ. The souls of men would have been immortal if 
they had never sinned, or if, when they had sinned, no plan of 
redemption had been revealed. But the resurrection which Paul 
preached does stand in immediate connection with the mediation 
of Christ. " Since by man came death, by man came also the 
resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in 



RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 563 

Christ shall all be made alive " (Cor. xv. 21). Then, the doc- 
trine of immortality was not a new one to the heathen. It was 
what the wiser among them had always believed. But the 
resurrection which Paul preached was new to the heathen ; yea, 
more than this, it was strange and incredible. When the Athe- 
nians "heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, 
and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter." The 
Stoics and Epicureans said, " What will this babbler say? He 
seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods ; because Paul 
preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection" (Acts xvii. 18, 
32). It is evident from both the considerations here referred 
to, that Paul must have preached something more than the mere 
doctrine of immortality. He preached the resurrection of the 
body; as the language of his epistles conclusively shows. 

" He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken 
your bodies, by his Spirit that dwelleth in you " (Rom. viii. 
11). "Who shall change your vile body, that it may be 
fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body" (Phil. iii. 21). 
We have already referred to Paul's argument, in proof of the 
resurrection, contained in the fifteenth chapter of his first 
Epistle to the Corinthians. He begins with inferring the resur- 
rection of believers from the resurrection of Christ (vs. 12-23). 
He then speaks of the manner of the resurrection, and of the 
kind of bodies with which the glorified saints will appear (vs. 
35-50). He closes the discussion in the following animating, 
triumphant language: "Behold, I show you a mystery: We 
shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, 
in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump ; for the trumpet 
shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and w r e " 
(the living) " shall be changed. For this corruptible must put 
on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So, 
when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this 
mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to 
pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in vic- 
tory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy 
victory?" (vs. 51-55.) 

There is a passage, equally decisive, in Paul's first Epistle to 
the Thessalonians : "I would not have you ignorant, brethren, 



564 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not even as 
others that have no hope. For, if we believe that Jesus died, 
and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God 
bring with him. For this we say unto you, by the word of the 
Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the corning of 

7 o 

the Lord shall not prevent" (anticipate) "them which are 
asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with 
a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the trump of God, 
and the dead in Christ shall rise first ; " that is, before the liv- 
ing are changed. " Then we which are alive and remain shall 
be "caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the 
Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 
Thess. iv. 13-17). 

The fact brought out in these passages, in regard to such 
Christians as shall be alive at the coming of Christ, has an im- 
portant bearing on the question before us. It seems that their 
bodies are not to die, but to be instantly changed, — changed 
into immortal and glorious bodies, — and they are to go up, soul 
and body, to meet their Lord. The only question then is, Are 
the dead saints to be made equal to them,- — to be like them? 
If so, their bodies must be raised from the dead, — must also 
become immortal and glorious, — that they may all stand alike 
and together before the throne of the Son of man. 

In short, the testimony of Paul is so explicit on the point 
before us, that those who deny the resurrection of the body can 
only say that his inspiration may have failed him here ; he may 
have been mistaken ; and we are not bound to receive such a 
doctrine simply because he taught it. 

Most of the Scriptures above quoted refer to the resurrection 
of believers. But this is not the case with them all. There is 
abundant evidence of the resurrection of the wicked. They 
shall be raised "to shame and everlasting contempt." They 
shall come forth " unto the resurrection of damnation." 

The time of the general resurrection has been sufficiently in- 
dicated in the passages already quoted. It is to be on the 
morning of the last day, — the day of judgment. Then the 
trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and 
the living will be changed. Then all the glorified saints will be 



RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 565 

caught up together, to meet their Lord in the air, and dwell 
forever with him ; while all the wicked then alive, or who ever 
have lived, will go away accursed to their own place, — the 
place " prepared for the devil and his angels." 

Some have supposed that the righteous dead would be raised 
much sooner than this, even previous to the millennium; and 
that they would reign personally with Christ on the earth dur- 
ing the whole of that period. This opiuion is founded on a 
passage in the twentieth chapter of the Revelation : "I saw 
thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto 
them. And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the 

witness of Jesus, and the word of God, and 

they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the 
rest of the dead lived not again uutil the thousand years were 
finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he 
that hath part in the first resurrection. On such the second 
death hath no power ; but they shall be priests of God and of 
Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years" (Rev. xx. 
4-6). 

• We will not here consider the question of the personal reign 
of Christ on the earth during the millennium. That will come 
up in another place. As to the resurrection of the bodies of 
the holy dead, previous to the millennium, and their living on 
the earth during that period, I remark, in the first place, that 
the passage above quoted, even if taken literally, does not sus- 
tain such an idea. It is the resurrection of the martyrs only, 
and not of all the holy dead, of which the sacred writer speaks. 
And then it was "the souls of them that had been beheaded for 
the witness of Jesus," and not their raised bodies, which he in 
vision saw. 

But is the passage before us to be taken literally ? It stands 
in the midst of a chapter, and of a book, the other parts of 
which are, in general, to be understood figuratively or symboli- 
cally ; and why should not this be interpreted in the same way ? 
No one supposes that, at the commencement of the millennium, 
a literal angel is to come down from heaven, holding in his hand 
a literal key and chain ; and that he will literally lay hold of a 
literal dragon, and literally bind him, and cast him into a literal 



566 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

pit, and shut him up, and set a literal seal upon him, that he 
should go out no more for a thousand years. Every one sup- 
poses that this part of the chapter, and indeed all the parts 
of it, unless it be the verses above quoted, should be under- 
stood figuratively or symbolically. And why, again we ask, 
should not these verses be interpreted in the same way? 

Thus interpreted, they import, not a literal resurrection of 
the martyrs, but a revival of the martyrs' spirit. The martyrs 
will live again very much as Elijah lived in John the Baptist. 
John came in the spirit and power of Elijah. So the martyrs 
are to rise and live, in spirit, all through the millennium. Their 
spirit is to revive and predominate in the earth. In other words, 
the millennium is to be a time of preeminent holiness. Christ 
will reign on earth spiritually and universally, and the martyr- 
spirit, being restored, will live and reign with him. 

Such, as it seems to me, is the true import of the passage be- 
fore us ; and, thus interpreted, it furnishes no ground for the 
idea of a literal, pre-millennial resurrection of the martyrs, — 
^uch less of all the holy dead. 

The doctrine of the resurrection was perverted and denied 
even in the apostolic age. There were those then who said, 
"There is no resurrection; or, if there be any, it is passed al- 
ready" (1 Cor. xv. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 18). The individuals here 
referred to were, probably, of the Gnostic class. They regarded 
matter as essentially corrupting, — the source and centre of all 
evil. Under the influence of this error they "neglected the 
body," and practised all manner of austerities upon it. And 
they could not believe, when once the body was shaken off, and 
resolved back to dust, that it ever would be again assumed. 
They held to a spiritual renovation or resurrection, and that, in 
respect to true Christians, this was past already. It was against 
these perverters of the truth that the Apostle Paul reasoned, in 
the fifteenth chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, and 
cautioned Timothy, in his second and last epistle to him. 

The doctrine of the resurrection has been denied and ridi- 
culed by modern infidels, and by some whole sects of religion- 
ists. It is to be regarded, however, as a plainly revealed, an 
important and comforting doctrine, of God's holy truth. 



THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 567 



LECTURE Lin. 

THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 

By a general judgment, we understand the judging of God's 
intelligent creatures together, in one vast assembly. This is a 
very different thing from that individual judgment which is to 
be passed upon us, or which we shall be led to pass upon our- 
selves at death ; and many Scriptures may be quoted to prove 
the latter, which do not go to the extent of establishing the 
former. 

1. Let us first inquire as to the fact of a general judgment. 
Our only guide on this question is the Bible ; and what is the 
testimony of Scripture in regard to it ? 

Frequent mention is made, in the New Testament, of the day 
of judgment; and it is evident, from a comparison of passages, 
that this is not, to each one, the day of his death, but a specific 
period or day, which is to synchronize with the general confla- 
gration, or the end of the world. "The heavens and the earth, 
which are now, are kept in store, reserved unto fire, against the 
day of judgment." And again: "The day of the Lord" (the 
same as the day of judgment) "will come as a thief in the 
night, in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great 
noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth 
also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up" (2 
Pet. iii. 7, 12). We see, in these passages, when the day of 
judgment is to come. It is to be, not to each one the day of his 
death, but to all the day of final conflagration, when this earth, 
with all its contents, shall be consumed. 

We read much in the New Testament of the coming of Christ, 
and the appearing of Christ; and though, in some instances, 
these expressions may be used with reference to other events, 



568 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

they in general refer to his corning to judge the world at the last 
day. We quote the following passages as examples : "We say 
unto you, by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and 
remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them 
which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from 
heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and of the 
trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first" (1 Thess. 
iv. 15). The coming of Christ here refers to his triumphal de- 
scent at the day of judgment, when all the dead shall be raised 
and the living will be changed.. We have the same reference 
in the following passage : "I charge thee before God and the 
Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead, at 
his appearing" (2 Tim. iv. 1). 

In other passages, Paul says : "We shall all stand before the 
judgment-seat of Christ;" and "We must all appear before 
the judgment-seat of Christ ; " — importing that there is to be 
a judgment-seat, before which' all the human family are to be 
gathered together. 

Keferring to this very scene, — his final appearing to judge the 
world,— our Saviour says: "When the Son of man shall come 
in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit 
upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered 
all nations ; and he shall separate them one from another, as a 
shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats" (Matt. xxv. 31, 
32) . The only objections to this proof-text is that it stands con- 
nected with a series of predictions, some of which have an un- 
doubted reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. Hence it is 
concluded that this must refer to the same event. But this con- 
clusion is by no means admissible. Our Saviour had been pre- 
dicting the destruction of the Jewish Temple. "Verily, I say 
unto you, there shall not be left one stone upon another that 
shall not be thrown down." The disciples came to him pri- 
vately, saying, "Tell us, when shall these things be? And 
what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the 
world?" The disciples here inquired respecting the predicted 
overthrow of the Jewish temple and state, which they supposed 
was to continue to the end of the world. They had no idea, at 
this time, that the Jewish rites were ever to be superseded, or 



THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 569 

that the Jewish commonwealth was to be destroyed, until the 
world w T as destroyed with it. Consequently, they inquired, 
When is to be this predicted overthrow of Jerusalem, and the 
end of the world ? not doubting that both would come to an end 
together. In his reply, our Saviour spoke of the destruction 
both of Jerusalem and of the world ; connecting the two to- 
gether as type and antitype. In the former part of his dis- 
course, the language refers more particularly to the destruction 
of Jerusalem ; and in the latter part, to the end of the world. 
In several places, his expressions may be understood as having 
a primary fulfilment in the destruction of Jerusalem, and an 
ultimate reference to the end of the world. The verses quoted 
above, with those that follow them to the end of the chapter, 
have, clearly, an exclusive reference to the day of judgment 
and the end of the world. They can refer to nothing else. Cer- 
tain it is that they were not fulfilled at the destruction of Jeru- 
salem. Nothing at all answering to them at that time took 
place. They maybe regarded, therefore, as an express predic- 
tion, from the lips of the Saviour, of a general judgment ; and 
sufficient of themselves to settle the question that such an event 
is most assuredly to be expected. 

I shall quote but another passage in proof of the point before 
us, — a point which already has been fully established. In the 
book of Revelation, after the account of the millennium, and of 
the great defection at the close of the millennium, and of the 
final overthrow of the kingdom of Satan, the writer says : "I saw 
a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face 
the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no 
place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand 
before God. And the books were opened ; and the dead were 
judged out of those things which were written in the books, 
according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which 
were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead which were 
in them, and they were judged, every man, according to their 
works" (Rev. xx. 11). Here is another plain and incontestable 
prediction of a general judgment, which is to take place at the 
time of the general resurrection, at the end of the world, when 

72 



570 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

the entire human family are to stand and be judged together, 
according to their works. 

2. The time of the general judgment. In settling the ques- 
tion as to the fact of a general judgment we have, incidentally, 
determined the time of it. It is to follow immediately upon the 
general resurrection, and to synchronize with the final confla- 
gration and the end of the world. In the predictions of the 
Bible we find these great events all .culminating and clustering 
together. Before they take place, there is to be a long period of 
rest and peace to the church on earth, during which Satan is to 
be bound, and his malign influence upon mankind restrained. 
At the close of this period the destroyer is to be loosed for a 
little season, and vice and wickedness are again to prevail. But 
in the midst of this last triumph of the ungodly, while they are 
coming up upon the breadth of the earth as the sand of the 
sea, and compassing the camp of the saints about, and the be- 
loved city ; suddenly, unexpectedly, the archangel's trump will 
sound, and the scenes of the last judgment will burst upon the 
world. (See Rev. 20.) 

3. The final Judge. Respecting the personage who is to be 
Judge on this great occasion, the Scriptures leave us no room 
for doubt. It is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Father "hath 
committed all judgment unto the Son" (John v. 22). "Who 
shall judge the quick and the dead, at his appearing and king- 
dom" (2 Tim. iv. 1). "The Son of man shall come in his 
glory, and all the holy angels with him, and then shall he sit on 
the throne of his glory" (Matt. xxv. 31). The judging of the 
world is represented as the last mediatorial work of the Saviour. 
When that is finished, and the final awards are pronounced and 
executed, then will he deliver up his mediatorial kingdom to 
the Father, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. xv. 24-28). 

4. The beings judged. The beings to be judged in the last 
great day are, first, the whole human family, the righteous and 
the wicked, — all who have lived on this earth from its creation 
to its end. "Before him shall be gathered all nations." "Every 
one of us shall give an account of himself to God." 

We may also expect that the angels will be called to the judg- 
ment with us. Of the fallen angels, it is expressly said, that 



THE GENEKAL JUDGMENT. 571 

they "are reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto 
the judgment of the great day" (Jude .6). Respecting the 
judgment of the holy angels, we are not so explicitly informed. 
But from the fact that they were once upon trial, and that, as 
ministering spirits, they are deeply concerned with us in our 
trial, the conclusion is not unreasonable that they will appear 
with us in the judgment at the last day. In the Bible we have 
no account of any other intelligent creatures, except angels and 
men. 

5. For what are we to be judged? The question has been 
asked, whether men are to be called into judgment, at the last 
day, for their whole character up to that period, or only for 
their characters while on probation. The latter supposition we 
think the more reasonable and scriptural. Probation and judg- 
ment are connected ideas. Men are now on probation for the 
judgment. They are here forming characters for the judgment 
of the last day. The presumption, therefore, is that they will 
be called into judgment only for the characters formed and sus- 
tained by them during the period of their trial. 

If we are to be called to an account for character sustained 
subsequent to the termination of our trial, then why not for 
character sustained subsequent to the day of judgment ? And 
must we not suppose, on this ground, that there will be succes- 
sive days of judgment, following each other at intervals to all 
eternity ? 

But the Scriptures have decided this question for us. n We 
must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every 
one may receive the things done in his body, according to that 
he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. v. 10). It 
is, then, for "the things done in the body," — done by us while 
on probation here, — that we are to stand before the judgment- 
seat of Christ, and render an impartial account. 

6. Duration of the judgment. Respecting the duration of 
the judgment scene, different opinions have been entertained, 
and the Scriptures afford us no positive information. We are 
told, indeed, of the day of judgment ; but whether a literal day 
is intended, or a much longer period, it is impossible to decide. 
The process of judgment will continue long enough to answer 



572 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

all the purposes for which it was instituted ; but I see no neces- 
sity for supposing that it will continue for a very long period, — 
perhaps not longer than a literal day. At the sound of the last 
trump the dead are to be raised, "in a moment, in the twinkling 
of an eye." In a very little time the thrones can be set, and 
the books opened, and the worlds assembled before their tinal 
Judge. An unerring separation can soon be made. And by 
some mysterious process, there may be such a general unfold- 
ing and exhibition of character, that " every work shall be 
brought into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be 
good or whether it be evil." We know not, at present, how 
such an exhibition of character is to be made ; but who will say 
that it cannot be made, and made suddenly; so that the whole 
process of the judgment may pass away in comparatively a 
little time ? 

7'. The object of the judgment. The final judgment must 
have been appointed for some great and important object, — an 
object worthy of the vastness and grandeur of the scene. This 
object was not, certainly, to satisfy God how his creatures had 
acted ; or to satisfy them, individually, as to their own charac- 
ter and state : for God will learn nothing new respecting his 
creatures, in the light of the judgment; and each one of them 
may be as well satisfied as to his own character and state before 
the judgment as afterwards. The grand object of the judgment 
must be something vastly higher than all this. It is, probably, 
to aflbrd to the Divine Being an opportunity to vindicate his 
own character before the universe ; to show to each and every 
one of his creatures that he has done right, — in respect not only 
to that one, but to all the rest. In the judgment, God will show 
to me that he has treated all my fellow-creatures right ; and to 
all my fellow-creatures that he has treated me right. He will 
show to each individual of the countless myriads who surround 
his throne, that he has treated, not only themselves, but all the 
others right ; so that when the separation is made, and the sen- 
tences pronounced, every mouth may be stopped and every con- 
science convinced that the award is, in every instance, right. 
"We have here the grand object of the general judgment ; the 
purpose to be answered by it ; the reason why God has deter- 



THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 573 

mined, at some period yet future, to bring his intelligent creat- 
ures, friends and enemies, together, and try and judge them in 
the presence of each other. And certainly this is a most noble 
object, — one altogether worthy of the grandeur and glory of 
the final day. 

8. The issues of the judgment. These are clearly set before 
us in the Scriptures. One portion of our lost race will be 
acquitted and blessed, and caught away to mansions prepared 
for them before the foundation of the world ; while the other 
portion will be condemned and accursed, and driven away "into 
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." And 
from that period forward there will be no more changes. "He 
that is unjust will be unjust still ; and he that is filthy will 
be filthy still ; and he that is holy will be holy still " (Eev. 
xxii. 11). 

And thus the grand drama of this world's history will be 
closed. Heaven will gather into its capacious bosom all that is 
holy and lovely from the earth, — all that is meet for that blest 
abode ; and hell will receive to its flaming prisons those only 
that are degraded, polluted, and vicious, — on whose souls are 
found the stains of unforsaken, uncleansed, unpardoned guilt. 
"Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and 
murderers, and idolaters, and whatsoever loveth and maketh 
a lie." 

At this decisive period, this earth, having answered the pur- 
pose for which it was made, will be burned up ; and the great 
Kedeemer, having gathered in his own elect, and put all enemies 
under his feet, and finished the work which was given him to 
do, will lay aside his mediatorial character, and "deliver up the 
kingdom to God, even the Father." 



574 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE LIY. 

FINAL STATE OF THE KIGHTEOUS AND THE WICKED. 

At the close of the last judgment, the righteous are invited 
to take possession of " the kingdom prepared for them from the 
foundation of the world." They are said to go away "into life 
eternal" (Matt. xxv. 34, 46). The final abode of the righteous 
is, in Scripture, denominated heaven; and it has been made a 
question whether heaven is literally a place to which the right- 
eous go, or merely a state of being upon which they enter. 

My own opinion is, that heaven is a place. I know of no 
reason why it should not be so considered. If the heavenly 
beings are pure spirits, it is certain that spirits may be located, 
or fixed to some particular place. Our spirits are now united 
to our bodies, and confined to the present world. What ab- 
surdity, then, in supposing that other spirits are confined to 
some other place, in another world? 

But the righteous, after the judgment, will not be pure spirits. 
They will have bodies as well as souls ; and from the very 
nature of the body, it is certain, not only that it may be located, 
but that it must be. The abode of the raised, glorified body, 
must be a place. Accordingly, our Saviour said to his disciples, 
when about to leave them, "I go to prepare a place for you" 
(John xiv. 2). And heaven is uniformly spoken of in the 
Scriptures as a place. It is "a house not made with hands, 
eternal in the heavens." It is a " city which hath foundations, 
whose builder and maker is God." It is a "kingdom prepared 
for God's people from the foundation of the world." 

The enjoyments of heaven are adapted to the holy natures of 
the glorified beings who dwell there. They are not, in the 
proper sense of the term, sensual ; though, subsequent to the 



FINAL STATE OF THE RIGHTEOUS AND WICKED. 575 

resurrection, they will be, to some extent, corporeal. Every 
sense and organ of the raised body will be a source, an inlet, of 
celestial glory. The happiness of heaven will consist partly in 
the absence of everything calculated to disquiet and afflict the 
soul. There the righteous are said to "rest from their labors." 
They rest from all temptation and conflict, toil and fatigue, sin 
and sorrow. They rest from all sickness and pain, and from 
every variety of evil which besets them in the present life. 
"They hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall 
the sun smite them, nor any heat;" and "God shall wipe away 
all tears from their eyes." 

But the happiness of heaven is not a mere negation, — the 
absence of everything calculated to afflict the soul. The enjoy- 
ments of that world are also positive. They are in part intel- 
lectual ; arising from the exercise of the understanding, and the 
discovery of truth. They are in part moral ; arising from the 
exercise and approbation of conscience. But they are chiefly 
spiritual, — the satisfaction of the heart, — growing out of the 
love of God, and flowing from the most intimate communion 
with him. It is emphatically true of heavenly beings, that they 
rejoice in God, — in his perfections, his character, his govern- 
ment, and his glory. They rejoice in Christ, — in his person 
and character, in his finished work of redeeming mercy, and in 
the stability and triumph of his holy kingdom. They rejoice in 
one another, — in their society, their fellowship, their employ- 
ments, and their prospects. Indeed, every capacity of their 
souls will be filled with joy ; and, as these capacities enlarge, 
they will continue to be filled ; and thus will their course be 
onward and upward forever. 

At the close of the judgment, the wicked are represented as 
"going away into everlasting punishment." They are to "de- 
part accursed into everlasting fire" (Matt. xxv. 41, 46). The 
abode of the wicked in the other world is, in Scripture, denom- 
inated hell. "The wicked shall be turnediuto hell, with all the 
nations that forget God" (Ps. ix 17). 

The same considerations which have been urged to show that 
heaven is a place are in point also to prove that hell is a place. 
It may be a place previous to the resurrection ; but subsequent 



576 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

to that event it would seem it must be. The body, raised "to 
shame and everlasting contempt," will need a place in which to 
be imprisoned and to suffer. Accordingly hell is everywhere 
spoken of in the Scriptures as a place. It is "the bottomless 
pit," "the lake of fire," the place "prepared for the devil and 
his angels." Of Judas it is said, when he had hanged himself, 
that he went "to his own place" (Acts i. 25). 

The miseries of the wicked, previous to the resurrection, 
must be purely spiritual ; but, after that event, they will be, in 
part, corporeal. They will consist in the loss, the absence, of 
everything desirable, and in the infliction of positive, unmingled, 
sufferings. The rich man in hell is said to have received his 
good things ; implying that no more good remained for him. 
Accordingly, he was denied a drop of water to cool his burning 
tongue. The wicked in hell are said to "have no rest, day nor 
night." "The wine of the wrath of God is poured out without 
mixture into their cup" (Rev. xiv. 10). They will endure the 
tortures of an ever-accusing, stinging conscience. They will 
suffer from the indulgence of unsated malice, envy, revenge, 
rage, and every other hateful passion of which they are capable. 
They will suffer from perpetual disappointment, defeat, and 
despair. They will suffer from one another. They will suffer 
all that is implied in those awful figures, those appalling repre- 
sentations, by which the Holy Spirit has set forth their agonies. 

But will their sufferings endure forever? Will not these 
miserable beings, at some period, be released? Most gladly 
would we indulge the hope of their release, if this hope were 
justified by reason and the word of God ; but we are constrained 
to think that it is justified by neither. 

In urging arguments against the restoration of the finally lost, 
I shall be under the necessity of repeating some things which 
were said in a previous Lecture. 1 My apology is to be found 
in the great importance of the subject, and the necessity of 
treating it fairly and fully. 

1. Let it be considered, first of all, whether hell is a fit place 
for the conversion and reformation of those who are plunged 
into it. It is the world of miserable spirits, — the place "pre- 

i Lecture L : Death. 



FINAL STATE OF THE RIGHTEOUS AND WICKED. 577 

pared for the devil and his angels." It is a place from which 
all good beings and good influences are forever excluded, and 
where the wicked are given over to the unrestrained indulgence 
of whatever is base and sinful. They go on and go down, sin- 
ning and suffering, pouring forth their malice against God, and 
against one another, — biting and gnawing their tongues for 
pain, and yet not repenting of their evil deeds (Eev. xvi. 10). 
And now, we ask, what is there in such a place at all calculated 
to improve the characters or the condition of the miserable 
beings there immured? What is there to indicate that that 
world was fitted up as a house of correction, designed for the 
reformation of its guilty inhabitants ? Let any person consider, 
seriously, what kind of place hell is, — consider its society, its 
example, and the influence there exerted by one being upon 
another, — and see if he can persuade himself that the wicked 
are likely, in that world, to be won over to the love and prac- 
tice of the truth, and to be prepared for the inheritance of the 
saints in light. 

Perhaps some may think that the sufferings of hell will alone 
be sufficient to subdue the offenders, and bring them to repent- 
ance. But let such persons remember that mere unsanctified 
suffering has no tendency to subdue the obdurate heart. So 
far from this, its tendency is to harden, to exasperate, to pro- 
voke the impenitent mind to greater wickedness. Such was the 
effect which it had upon the heart of Pharaoh ; upon the heart 
of Saul, the first king of Israel ; and upon the heart of Ahaz, 
one of the kings of Judah. "In his distress did he trespass yet 
more against the Lord: this is that King Ahaz" (2 Chron. 
xxviii. 22). Unsanctified suffering always has this effect upon 
the human heart, and always will have, whether in this world 
or the next. " Though thou shouldest bray a fool with a pestle 
in a mortar, yet will not his foolishness depart from him" (Prov. 
xxvii. 22). 

2. The wicked cannot be released after the judgment (and it 
is with reference to their state after the judgment that we now 
inquire) for two reasons. In the first place, there will then be 
no mediator. Christ is now on his mediatorial throne, and is 
carrying forward his purposes of grace in respect to this world. 
73 



578 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

And this order of things will continue until the dead are raised, 
the worlds are judged, and the awards of the judgment are 
executed. And then cometh the end of the mediatorial king- 
dom. When all Christ's enemies are put under his feet, and all 
his purposes, both of grace and of justice, are accomplished, 
" then shall he deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, 
that God may be all in all" (1 Cor. xv. 28). From that period 
onward there will be no possibility of the salvation of sinners, 
for the very good reason that there will be no mediator. 

The same truth is further evident, since, after the judgment, 
there will be no probation. This has been fully proved, in our 
Lecture upon Death ; and the proof need not be repeated here. 
The consideration, that after the judgment there will be no 
probation, is decisive as to the destiny of those who are then 
condemned. 

3. It is essential to the doctrine of universal restoration to 
suppose all punishment disciplinary, designed merely to pro- 
mote the good of the sufferer, — which is absurd. If the suf- 
ferings of the other world are all designed and calculated to 
promote the good of those who bear them, then these sufferings 
are no evidence of God's permanent displeasure, but the con- 
trary. They are the chastisements of a merciful Father ; and 
"whom he loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom 
he receiveth." On this ground, too, it would be, not a blessing, 
but the contrary, to be delivered from these sufferings, at least 
until they had accomplished their end ; — just as it is an injury 
to the refractory child to be delivered from that degree of pun- 
ishment which is designed and calculated to promote his good. 

But we know that all punishment is not disciplinary ; neither 
among men, nor under the government of God. Capital pun- 
ishments, in this world, are not disciplinary, but exemplary. 
The murderer is not hanged for his own good, but as an exam- 
ple, for the good of society. God is often said in the Scriptures 
to take vengeance on his enemies, — a mode of expression which 
proves that what he inflicts, in such cases, is not disciplinary, 
but vindicative, exemplary. It is said of Sodom and Gomorrah, 
and the cities about them, that they " are set forth for an exam- 



FINAL STATE OF THE KIGHTEOUS AND WICKED. 5 79 

pie, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7). Here, 
certainly, is an instance of exemplary punishment. 

4. It is an acknowledged part of the doctrine of restoration, 
that every one suffers, sooner or later, all that he deserves. " We 
deserve no more suffering than that which is best calculated to 
promote our good ; and this every one is sure to receive." But 
what says the Bible, as to the proper wages and desert of sin? 
" The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life " 
(Rom. vi. 23). The wages of sin are here represented to be a 
death which stands in immediate contrast with eternal life. 
Consequently, they are eternal death. 

On this ground, too, salvation is impossible. There is no 
salvation in being delivered from what we deserve, if we de- 
serve only that degree of suffering which is best calculated to 
promote our good. To be delivered from this would be, not a 
salvation, but an injury. And, certainly, there is no salvation 
in being delivered from what we do not deserve. For, under 
the government of a righteous God, no one is, or ever was, 
exposed to endure undeserved miseries. r 

Again; the Scriptures represent that all who are saved are 
saved by grace, — saved by Christ, — are forgiven, justified, etc. 

But what grace in delivering those from further miseries, who 
have endured all that they deserve ? And how do such persons 
need the interposition of Christ? What can Christ do for 
them? They have suffered all they deserve, and have nothing 
more to endure or fear. And what have such persons to be 
forgiven? They have suffered the whole penalty of the law, 
paid their whole debt, and what is there left to be forgiven ? 
These remarks are sufficient to show that this doctrine of uni- 
versal restoration is abhorrent to the whole system of gospel 
grace. 

5. This system is contradicted by numerous and various rep- 
resentations of the Bible. The Scriptures speak of some who 
are never to be forgiven, and consequently never to be saved. ' 
"Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall 
be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy 
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither 
in the world to come " (Matt. xii. 32) , 



580 CHRISTIAN" THEOLOGY. 

The Scriptures speak of those who have received their por- 
tion of good in this life, and consequently have nothing to hope 
for beyond the grave. " Son, remember, that thou, in thy life- 
time, receivedst thy good things " (Luke xii. 25). " Woe unto 
you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation " (Luke 
vi. 4). 

The wicked generally hope for everlasting happiness in heaven ; 
but we are told in the Bible that their " hope shall perish ; " that 
It "shall be cut off; " that "it shall be as the giving up of the 
ghost" (Job viii. 13; xi. 29). How, then, are they to be 
made forever happy? 

It is said of some that their " end is destruction ; " that their 
" end is to be burned ; " that they shall " suddenly be destroyed, 
and that without remedy " (Phil. iii. 19 ; Heb. vi. 8 ; Prov. 
xxix. 1). It will be seen, at a glance, that all such representa- 
tions are in palpable contradiction to the idea of a final and 
universal restoration of the wicked. 

God says of the wicked, that when "their fear cometh as 
desolation, and their destruction as a whirlwind ; when distress 
and anguish come upon them; then they shall call, but he will 
not answer ; they shall seek him early, but they shall not find 
him" (Prov. i. 27, 28). How is this passage consistent with 
the idea that sinners will be heard and answered in the world 
below, and restored to everlasting happiness? 

It it said of those who were bidden to the gospel feast, and 
would not come, "They shall not taste of my supper" — they 
never shall (Luke xiv. 24). 

"He that believeth not the Son shall not see life," — never 
shall, — "but the wrath of God abideth on him;" — a sufficient 
proof, of itself, of the endless endurance of future miseries 
(John iii. 3$). 

Christ said to his enemies, at a certain time, "Ye shall seek 
me, and shall not find me, and where I am" (that is in heaven) 
" thither ye cannot come " (John vii. 34) . 

Of the traitor Judas, Christ said, " Good were it for that man 
if he had not been born" (Matt. xxvi. 24). This declaration 
is entirely inconsistent with the restoration of Judas to the 
everlasting favor and enjoyment of God. 



FINAL STATE OF THE RIGHTEOUS AND WICKED. * 581 

The rich man in hell was plainly told that betwixt him and 
heaven there was a great gulf fixed, so that those who would 
pass from one world to the other, could not (Luke xvi. 26) . 
Has this great gulf ever been bridged over, or will it be? 

How often did our Saviour threaten his enemies with "the 
fire that never shall be quenched ; where their worm dieth not, 
and the fire is not quenched" ! (Mark ix. 43, 44.) And how 
often it is said of the wicked, in the Book of God, that they 
" shall be cast into everlasting fire ; " that they " shall go away 
into everlasting punishment ; " that they " shall be punished 
with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and 
the glory of his power ! " (Matt. xxv. 41, 46 ; 2 Thess. i. 9.) 

I know it will be said, that the word rendered everlasting 
is sometimes used to signify a limited duration. To this I 
reply,— 

(1.) That the Greek words amv and amviog literally and prop- 
erly denote an endless duration. Their etymology (uei and wv 
being or existing always) shows this. Their ordinary use and 
signification show the same. They as properly denote an end- 
less duration as our English w T orcls eternal and everlasting. 
They are sometimes used, like the English words, in a restricted 
sense, — restricted by the nature of the subject to which they 
are applied ; but in such cases the connection readily iudicates 
the sense, so that there is little danger of error. But, 

(2.) We are not left to the general meaning of these words, 
however satisfactory that may be. The word uiwviog is so used 
by our Saviour, in reference to the future punishment of the 
wicked, as to show, conclusively, that it must denote an endless 
duration. I refer particularly to the passage (Matt. xxv. 46) 
where the future punishment of the wicked, and the future hap- 
piness of the righteous are set over one against the other, and 
the same term amviog is applied to both ; thus indicating that the 
duration of both is equal and endless. 

(3.) But we are not left even to this conclusive considera- 
tion. - There is a combination of the Greek words (erg rovg aiuvag 
tov uiMvav) in frequent use in the New Testament, which inva- 
riably denotes an endless duration. This phrase is used more 
than twenty times in the New Testament, and always in the 



582 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

same sense. It is used fourteen times in the Apocalypse, and 
always in the same sense. Now this peculiar phraseology is 
used repeatedly in the New Testament, and in the Apocalypse, 
to set forth the duration of the future punishment of the lost. 
They " shall be tormented day and night forever and ever." 
"The smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever." 
"And again they said, Alleluia, and her smoke rose up forever 
and ever " (Rev. xiv. 11 ; xix. 3 ; xx. 10). Really, if this does 
not decide the question as to the endless punishment of the 
wicked, then words cannot decide it. Here is a phraseology, 
which the writers of the New Testament have used more than 
twenty times, and the writer of a single book fourteen times, 
and always (unless it be in the cases referred to) to denote 
an endless duration ; and yet by these decisive, unambiguous 
words, the same writers have repeatedly set forth the duration 
of the future miseries of the lost. 

A consideration of the common objections to eternal punish- 
ment, together with some concluding remarks, must be deferred 
to another Lecture. 



ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 583 



LECTUEE LV. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 

1. It is objected to the doctrine of eternal punishment, that 
it is inconsistent with the perfections of God ; in particular, with 
his infinite wisdom, goodness, and power. These perfections, it 
is insisted, must lead the Supreme Being to do the best for his 
creatures, — for each and every one of them, — that can possibly 
be done ; — must lead him to make all his creatures as holy and 
as happy as they are capable of being, to all eternity. But is 
this conclusion justified? Is it consistent with plain matters of 
fact? Take, for example, the case of the fallen angels. Has 
God determined that they shall possess as great an amount of 
holiness and happiness as they are capable of, to all eternity ? 
Why then their fall, more than six thousand years ago, and all 
the miseries which they have since endured? Why are they 
still "reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the 
judgment of the great clay ? " And in the issue of the judgment, 
why are they to be driven away into the "everlasting fire," which 
has been prepared to receive them? (Jude 6 ; Matt. xxv. 41.) 

Will it be said that everlasting here means a long but limited 
period, after which the fallen angels will be restored, and be 
more than compensated for all their sufferings by an eternity of 
happiness? Without entering again upon a consideration of the 
meaning of the word everlasting, I would ask, to what degree 
of holiness and happiness are the fallen angels to be restored ? 
Certainly not to an infinite degree, unless they are to be made 
equal to the Supreme Being. And if the degree of their holi- 
ness and happiness is to be finite, I would ask, again, could not 
God have raised them to any finite degree of holiness and hap- 
piness, without the dreadful necessity of their fall, and their 



584 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

long-continued period of suffering and of sin? Could he not 
have raised them to as high degrees of holiness and happiness, 
without the intervention of their fall, as with it? And hence, 
is not all the sin and the misery of their long period of apos- 
tasy a dead loss to them ? And how are we to account for it, 
on the Universalist theory, as to the promptings of the divine 
perfections ? 

Will it be said, that the long period of sin and suffering 
through which the devils will have passed, at the time of their 
recovery, will have enlarged their capacities, and qualified them 
for higher degrees of holiness and happiness than they could 
otherwise have enjoyed ? But how enlarged their capacities ? 
Are sin and misery of such an enlarging and improving charac- 
ter? Or do they not rather tend to darken the understanding, 
to harden the heart, and impair and weaken all the powers of 
the soul? And, on this account, must not the devils, if restored 
at all, be restored with vastly feebler capacities than they might 
have possessed, if they had not sinned? At any rate, must not 
their long period of sin and suffering be regarded as a needless 
waste to them, and altogether unaccountable, on the theory of 
the Universalist, as to the promptings of the divine perfec- 
tions ? 

I have taken the case of the fallen angels to show the incon- 
sistency of the Universalist theory with plain matters of fact ; 
but the same reasoning will apply as well to the case of any 
other sinners. Here is a man who has sinned and suffered but 
one hour ; and how are we to reconcile his case with the theory 
under consideration? If God is bound, by his perfections, to 
give to each of his intelligent creatures, in the progress of its 
existence, the utmost amount of holiness and happiness of which 
it is capable ; what are we to think of his treatment of this 
man ? He certainly could have kept him, and saved him from 
this hour of sin and suffering ; and why did he not do it ? Will 
it be said, again, that God means to compensate him, for this 
hour's sin and suffering, by an overbalancing amount of future 
good ? But what is to be the degree of his enjoyment in future ? 
Not infinite, certainly ; and if finite, could not God have con- 



ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 585 

f erred any finite degree of enjoyment, without the necessity of 
a fall? 

The facts of God's dispensations are stubborn things ; and 
the general current of them, which have come to our knowledge, 
is utterly inconsistent with the idea that the perfections of the 
Creator bind or prompt him to give to each individual of his 
intelligent creation the utmost amount of holiness and happi- 
ness of which such individual is capable forever. Whatever 
else may be true, we know that this cannot be ; because it is 
contradicted by plain matters of fact. 

Will it be asked, then, What are the promptings of infinite 
wisdom and goodness? What must these adorable perfections 
dispose and lead the Supreme Being to do ? These are great 
questions, which it hardly becomes the creatures of yesterday 
to answer. And yet, guided by the Word and Spirit of God, I 
think we may safely say, that his perfections will prompt him to 
glorify himself, in the highest possible degree, by advancing, to 
the utmost, the good of the intelligent universe, as a whole. 
Perhaps some may think that this view is substantially the same 
as the other. But it is not so. The greatest good of a commu- 
nity, as a whole, may not involve or require the greatest good 
of every individual composing that whole. This is true, often, 
in regard to communities in this world. It may be true in 
regard to the vast community of the universe. Indeed, we 
have as much reason to suppose that it is true, as we have to 
suppose that God is infinitely wise and good, and that he is in- 
tending to glorify himself, in promoting the highest good of the 
universe. For we know that he has not determined to promote 
the highest possible good of every individual in the universe. 
This we learn, not only from his Word, but from facts actually 
occurring before our eyes. We infer, therefore, assuredly, that 
the highest good of the universe, as a whole, which, it would 
seem, the infinite perfections of the Supreme Being must lead 
him to accomplish, does not involve the highest possible good of 
every individual composing that whole. God may do all that 
his infinite perfections prompt him to do ; he may secure the 
highest good of the universe, as a whole, and yet individuals 
be left to suffer, more or less, for a longer or shorter period, 

74 



586 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

temporarily or eternally, as the demands of justice and the 
greatest good of the whole shall require. 

The difficulty on this subject (if there be any) lies not in the 
eternal existence of sin and misery, but in their existence at all. 
Eeasoning, a priori, from the divine wisdom and goodness, with- 
out any reference to existing facts, we might infer, perhaps we 
should think conclusively, that there could be no sin, or evil of 
any kind, under the government of God. For, surely, an in- 
finitely good being cannot be pleased with evil, and, possessed 
of infinite wisdom and power, he is able to exclude it forever 
from his dominions. Having drawn this seemingly incontest- 
able inference, we open our eyes upon the world, and we find it 
a field of blood and a vale of tears. We see the whole world 
lying in wickedness, — " groaning and travailing in pain to- 
gether until now." And now what are we to think? Has God 
ceased to reign ? Or has he ceased to be infinitely wise and 
good? Or have our metaphysics misled us? Have we mis- 
taken the promptings and operations of the divine perfections ? 
We see now that God is not consulting for the highest possible 
good of each individual of his creatures. Facts forbid this sup- 
position. But may he not be consulting for the highest good 
of the universe as a whole ? And may not the highest good of 
the whole, as a whole, be perfectly consistent with, and even 
require, all the evils that we see existing around us? And if 
the highest good of the whole may be consistent with, and re- 
quire the existence of evil temporarily, may it not require the 
same eternally? And in this view, who but the Supreme Being 
can decide — a point which he has decided affirmatively in his 
word — whether his infinite perfections, his highest glory, and 
the highest good of the intelligent universe, as a whole, may 
not be more than consistent with — may not require — the ever- 
lasting sin and misery of a part of his intelligent creation ; — 
providing always that no injustice shall be done ; that none 
shall have occasion to feel or to say that they have been treated 
worse than they deserve ? 

And now, when the Universalist asks, "How can you recon- 
cile the everlasting sin and misery of a part of God's intelligent 
creation with his infinite wisdom and goodness ? " I answer : 



ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 587 

Just as well as you can reconcile the sin and misery which act- 
ually exist, and which you believe will exist for a long time 
to come, with God's infinite wisdom and goodness ; — and a 
great deal better. For, on the principles which you adopt as to 
the promptings of the divine perfections, you cannot account 
at all for the sin and misery which you know exist. But on 
the principles which I adopt, I can account for the existence of 
sin and misery temporarily and eternally. And if you renounce 
your principles, and adopt mine, you can just as well account 
for the eternal existence of sin and suffering, as for their ex- 
istence in the present life. 

2. It has been further objected, that eternal punishment is 
inconsistent with the justice of God. " The sin of a finite 
being cannot be an infinite evil, nor can it deserve eternal pun- 
ishment." I have no partiality for the phrase infinite evil of 
sin. It is one which I seldom use ; though I should have no 
objection to using it with proper explanations. When an in- 
dividual commits sin, he perpetrates the greatest evil, — he 
does the greatest wrong to God and the universe, of which he 
is capable. This is, perhaps, all that is meant, when it is said 
that he is chargeable with an infinite evil. And having com- 
mitted the greatest evil of which, in his circumstances, he is 
capable, he may be said to deserve the greatest punishment of 
which he is capable ; — a punishment varying in degree accord- 
ing to circumstances, but of endless duration. 

We come to the same conclusion, looking at the subject in 
another light. The evil of an offence rises in magnitude, in 
proportion to the dignity of the being against whom it is com- 
mitted. Thus to spit upon a worm would be a very slight of- 
fence. To spit contemptuously on an animal of great beauty 
and value would be a more considerable offence. To spit upon 
a man would be a still greater offence. To spit in the face of 
one's father, or of a king, would be dreadful. The offence rises 
in degree, at every step, just in proportion to the dignity and 
worth of the being against whom it is committed. What, then, 
shall be said as to the enormity of an offence, committed (as all 
sin is) directly against God, and against all the interests of the 



588 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

universe? Is it an abuse of terms, to speak of sin in this view, 
as an infinite evil, and as deserving an endless punishment? 

Nor must we forget, in this connection, the cross of Christ. 
How appalling must that evil be which brought the Son of God 
to the cross, and for which nothing less than his precious blood 
could atone? Is it an abuse of terms, I ask again, to speak of 
sin, in this view, as an infinite evil? 

After all, we can get but a faint conception of the evil and ill- 
desert of sin in the present life ! In respect to this subject, as 
well as many others, we see now through a glass darkly. And 
yet we may see enough, even here, to satisfy us that the penalty 
of God's law is a just penalty, and that the proper wages and 
desert of sin are eternal death. Every truly convicted sinner is 
satisfied of this. Every person must be satisfied of it before he 
can offer up the publican's prayer, or accept of that merGy which 
is offered in the gospel. Those, therefore, who are not satisfied 
on this point, — who are disposed to cavil at the justice of God's 
threatenings, — reveal a fearful secret in regard to their own 
minds and hearts. Instead of refuting God's justice, they un- 
mask themselves, and show that they have never yet come to a 
right understanding of their own characters and deserts in the 
sight of God. 

3. Numerous passages of Scripture have been relied on to 
disprove the doctrine of eternal punishment. In presenting and 
considering these Scriptures, it will be necessary, so far as pos- 
sible, to classify them. 

(1.) A class of passages has been quoted, which merely 
prove the universality of Christ's atonement, and the extent of 
the provisions and offers of the gospel. " Who gave himself a 
ransom for all" (1 Tim. ii. 6). He "tasteth death for every 
man" (Heb. ii. 9). "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh 
away the sin of the world" (John i. 29). "God sent not his 
Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world 
through him might be saved " (John iii. 17) . There can be no 
doubt that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all men. He 
"tasteth death for every man." He has expiated, and in this 
sense "taken away, the sin of the world." He has made a pro- 
vision, has laid a foundation, on the ground of which the world 



ETEEXAL PUNISHMENT. 589 

may be saved. But will all men accept of this provision? \Yill 
all build on this foundation? TTill all embrace the free and 
universal offers of life? If not, what good will the atonement, 
the provisions of the gospel, the offers of life do them? Better 
had it been for them, in this case, if Christ had never died. 

(2.) Other Scriptures have been quoted, in proof of universal 
salvation, which merely express the universal benevolence of 
God, and his desires that all men should come to the knowledge 
of the truth. "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, 
but that the wicked turn from his way and live " (Ezek. xxxiii. 
11). "Not willing that any should perish, but that all should 
come to repentance" (2 Pet. iii. 9). "TVno will have all men 
to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 
ii. 4). The will and pleasure of God, as the terms are here 
used, signify his desires, his wishes, and not his unchangeable 
purposes. In the sense in which God wills not that any should 
perish, but that all should come to repentance, he wills that 
there should be no sin and suffering in the universe. He has 
no pleasure in sin aud suffering. Separately considered, he 
does not desire them. Yet, all things considered, it has entered 
into his great plan of providence that these evils should exist. 
So the final destruction of the wicked may have entered into 
his universal plan ; although, in itself, he can have no pleasure 
in it. 

(3 . ) Other passages are quoted in proof of universal salvation 
which merely express God's universal providential care of men 
in the present life. They do not relate to the future world at 
all. " The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over 
all his works " (Ps. cxlv. 9) . " The Lord will not cast off for- 
ever, but though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion ; 
for he doth not afflict willingly, nor o T ieve the children of men" 
(Lam. iii. 31-33). "We trust in the living God, who is the 
Saviour " (temporal preserver, deliverer 1 ) " of all men, specially 
of those that believe" (1 Tim. iv. 10). 

(4.) Other Scriptures are quoted, which express God's read- 
iness to forgive his wandering people, and restore them to his 
favor, on repentance. "The Lord is merciful and gracious, 

1 See WMtby, BloomfieldJ Scott, etc. 



590 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

slow to anger and plenteous in mercy. He will not always 
chide, neither will he keep his anger forever" (Ps. ciii. 8, 9). 
"Keturn, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord, and I will not 
cause mine anger to fall upon you ; for I am merciful, saith the 
Lord, and I will not keep mine anger forever" (Jer. iii. 12). 
" Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, 
whose name is holy : I dwell in the high and holy place ; with 
him, also, that is of a humble and contrite spirit, to revive the 
spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. 
For I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth ; 
for the spirit shoulcl fail before me, and the souls which I have 
made" (Is. lvii. 15, 16). In these and the like passages, there 
is nothing to favor Universalism, unless it be the sound of 
words. The moment they are examined in their connection, 
they are seen to have no relation to the subject. 

(5.) In a multitude of passages, God has predicted and 
promised a coming day, when the gospel shall prevail all over 
the earth, and the nations shall all be blessed in the Saviour. 
Upon some of these passages Universalists have seized, and 
forced them, against their obvious meaning, into the work of 
proving universal salvation. "In thee (Abraham) shall all the 
families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. xii. 3). " All the ends 
of the earth shall remember, and turn unto the Lord, and all 
the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee" (Ps. xxii. 
27). "The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh 
shall see it together" (Is. xl. 5). 1 "There was given him 
dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, 
and languages should serve him" (Dan. vii. 14). " And I, if I 
be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." I will 
open a way in which all men may come, and will usher in a 
period in which all will come, — when the earth shall be full of 
the knowledge and love of God. (John xii. 32.) 

Near akin to these passages are those which speak of the res- 
toration of the Jews ; some of which have also been pressed into 
the service of Universalism. " Blindness, in part, is happened 
unto Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in ; and so 
all Israel shall be saved." When the fulness of the Gentiles is 

1 This passage is quoted, with some_variation, in Luke iii. 6. 



ETEKNAL PUNISHMENT. 591 

brought in, the Jews shall be converted with them (Rom. xi. 
26). In a passage in Ezekiel, where the conversion of Jews 
and Gentiles is promised, the Gentiles are spoken of under the 
similitude of two wicked sisters, Sodom and Samaria. "When 
thy sisters Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former 
estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return unto their 
former estate, then shalt thou and thy daughters return unto 
your former estate" (Ezek. xvi. 55). The concluding verses 
of this chapter show plainly that the restoration here spoken of 
is to be accomplished in this life, — in the latter-day glory of 
the church on earth, — when Jews and Gentiles shall rejoice 
together in the hopes and privileges of the gospel. 

(6.) Other passages are quoted, in proof of universal salva- 
tion, which relate simply to the universal resurrection of the 
dead. " I will ransom them from the power of the grave ; I 
will redeem them from death. O death, I will be thy plague ! 
O grave, I will be thy destruction ! " (Hos. xiii. 14.) " Since by 
man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the 
dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be 
made alive" (1 Cor. xv. 20). As temporal death came by 
Adam, so the resurrection will be by Christ. And yet some will 
be raised "to shame. and everlasting contempt" (Dan. xii. 2). 

(7.) Other Scriptures are quoted to prove universal salva- 
tion, which it is plain, from the connection, relate to the general 
judgment ; at which period, we know, the wicked will not be 
restored, but will be driven away from the judgment into ever- 
lasting fire. " We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of 
Christ: for it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee 
shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So 
then every one of us shall give an account of himself to God " 
(Rom. xiv. 11). This passage is taken from Is. xlv. 23. It is 
quoted again by Paul, in Phil. ii. 9. It relates, we know, to 
the final judgment, when all shall do homage to Christ. But 
with the wicked it will be the homage of constraint and fear, 
and not of the heart. 

"He shall send Jesus Christ" (that is, to judgment) "whom 
the heavens must receive until the time of the restitution of all 
things" (Acts iii. 21). The restitution here spoken of, what- 



592 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ever it may be, is to take place at the second coming of Christ. 
Of course, it cannot be a restoration of all men to the love and 
favor, of God ; since one part of the object for which Christ will 
then appear will be to sentence and consign the wicked to the 
regions of despair. 

(8.) Other passages have been quoted, which express the 
purpose of God ultimately to restore the broken order of the 
universe, and bring all things, through Christ, harmoniously 
to conspire for the advancement of his own glory. He will 
" gather together all things in one " (Eph. i. 10) . He will M rec- 
onile all things to himself" (Col. i. 20). But all things may be 
gathered together in one, in the sense of the apostle, and be 
made harmoniously to conspire for the advancement of the 
divine glory, and yet the incorrigible enemies of God be pun- 
ished, as they deserve, to all eternity. 

(9.) There are two or three passages, which come not under 
either of the above classes, and on which it will be necessary to 
remark. The first is that in 1 Pet. iii. 19, where Christ is said 
to have preached to the spirits in prison. This preaching he is 
thought to have performed by the descent of his soul into hell 
during the interment of his body ; thus indicating that there is 
ground of hope even for the spirits of the lost. But the whole 
passage decides expressly (as was shown in a previous Lecture) 
that this preaching was not performed by Christ in person, but 
by his spirit. It further decides, that it was not performed 
while the Saviour's body lay in the tomb, but " while the long 
suffering of God waited, in the days of Noah, while the ark was 
preparing." Then Christ, by his spirit, assisting and strength- 
ening Noah and the other patriarchs, preached to the antedi- 
luvian sinners, — who refused to listen to the warnings given 
them, died in their sins, and went to hell; and in the days of 
the Apostle Peter they were imprisoned spirits in the world of 
despair. 

The next passage is in Eom. v. 12-20, where an analogy is 
drawn between Adam and Christ, and it is represented that, as 
the former introduced sin into the world, and brought all men 
under a sentence of death, so the latter has opened a way of life, 
and brought all men into a state in which they may be justified 



ETEKNAL PUNISHMENT. 593 

and saved. The passage is too long to be quoted and critically 
commented on here. A few points, however, are very obvi- 
ous. As, first, the great calamity introduced by Adam is 
called death ; and the corresponding benefit introduced by 
Christ is the justification of life ; and these must be under- 
stood as standing in contrast, one over against the other. 
What, then, was the death introduced by Adam? Was it 
merely temporal death ? Then the opposite benefit is the res- 
urrection of the body, — which may be accomplished, as before 
shown, and yet, some be raised "to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt." But the death introduced by Adam was something 
more than mere temporal death. It was eternal death. Adam 
did not> indeed, actually involve his whole race in eternal 
death, but he exposed them to it ; he brought them under sen- 
tence of eternal condemnation. In contrast with this, the sec- 
ond Adam does not actually bring all men into the possession 
of eternal life ; but he puts them in the way of it ; he sets it 
before them, and urges it upon them as an attainable good. 
This is the first part of the contrast. The second is equally 
striking and instructive. As those who follow the first Adam 
in point of character, become actual sinners, and, persisting in 
sin, go down to eternal death ; so those who follow the second 
Adam in point of character, become holy, and continue faithful 
unto the end, shall receive the opposite benefit, — the justifica- 
tion of life. Or, to adopt the precise language of the apostle, 
those " who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of 
righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." 

Such I conceive to be the proper meaning of this disputed 
passage, so far as it bears on the subject before us ; and, cer- 
tainly, it goes not a step towards teaching or favoring the doc- 
trine of universal salvation. 

There is but another passage on which I think it necessary to 
remark, and that maybe found in Kevelation v. 13: "Every 
creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the 
earth, and in the sea, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and 
glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and 
unto the Lamb, forever and ever." In order to understand this 
passage, it is only necessary to observe, that the vision here 
75 



594 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

recorded is not a prophecy of what is to take place in the com- 
ing ages. It does not belong to the prophetical part of the Rev- 
elation, which commences with the opening of the seals in the 
sixth chapter. But the heavens were opened to the beloved 
disciple, and he informs us of what he saw then actually taking 
place in heaven. He saw the throne of God ; and in the midst 
of the throne a Lamb as it had been slain ; and he heard the 
worship of the living creatures, the elders, and the holy angels. 
Nor was this all. He heard every creature that was in heaven, 
— even those whose bodies were mouldering upon the earth, 
and under the earth, and in the sea, — he heard all the spirits 
of the just made perfect, wherever their bodies were entombed, 
uniting with the angelic choir, and singing, "Blessing, and 
honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the 
throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever." 

I will not dwell longer on the proof-texts of Universalists. 
It is proof enough of the falseness of their system, that they 
are under the necessity of suborning such a mass of Scripture 
testimony, and turning it aside from its natural and proper 
signification, in order to afford to their doctrine so much as 
the semblance of support. 

4. It is thought by many, who abandon the idea of a universal 
restoration, that there is hope at least for the heathen, who die 
in their sins. But what is the testimony of Scripture in regard 
to the future state and prospects of the heathen ? It is of the 
heathen, especially, that the Psalmist says : " The wicked shall 
be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God" (Ps. 
ix. 17). "Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not 
known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon 
thy name" (Ps. lxxix. 6). The prophecies of Obadiah and 
Nahum are continued denunciations of God's wrath upon the 
heathen. By Micah, God says : "I will execute vengeance, in 
anger and in fury, upon the heathen, such as they have not 
heard" (Chap. v. 15). Indeed, to die as the heathen, and lie 
down with the uncircumcised, was equivalent, in the mind of a 
Jew, to an endless perdition. (See Ezek. xxxii. 19-32.) 

The Apostle Paul, having mentioned the degraded and vic- 
ious practices of the heathen, adds : "They which commit such 



ETEKNAL PUNISHMENT. 595 

things are worthy of death ; " and " The end of these things is 
death ; " meaning, in both instances, as the connection shows, 
"eternal death" (Eom. i. 32; vi. 21). Again he says : God 
will render "indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, 
upon every soul of man that doeth evil : to the Jew first, and 
also to the Gentile," or heathen (Eom. ii. 9). Again, writing 
to those who had been heathens, and describing the vicious 
practices of the heathen, Paul says, in repeated instances, that 
such " shall not inherit the kingdom of God." They shall have 
no "inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." 1 In 
short, the whole missionary life of Paul is a practical illustration 
of his belief on this subject. He would never have labored and 
suffered as he did for the salvation of the heathen, had he not 
regarded them as in a lost state without the gospel, exposed to 
eternal death. 

The argument respecting the future state of the heathen may 
be stated in few words. 

(1.) There can be no doubt that they are sinners. They 
have broken the law of God, — that law which is written on the 
heart of every human being. 

(2.) Having broken the law of God, they are exposed to its 
penalty, which is eternal death. 

(3.) This penalty they must suffer, unless they are forgiven. 

(4.) They cannot be forgiven unless they repent. 

(5.) With few exceptions, here and there, they give no evi- 
dence of repentance, but the most painful evidence to the 
contrary. 

(6.) The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible, that the great 
body of the heathen, throughout the world, live and die in sin, 
and perish forever. The degree of their punishment, indeed, 
is not to be compared with that of those who perish from under 
the light of the gospel. They who know not their Lord's will, 
and commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few 
stripes (Luke xii. 48). Still, they must be beaten. They will 
be punished in measure, as they deserve ; but for aught that 
Scripture or reason teaches to the contrary, their punishment 
will be eternal. 

* 1 Cor. vi. 10 ; Gal. v. 21 ; Eph. v. 5. 



596 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

The doctrine of universal salvation, is unknown, so far as 
appears, in the heathen world. The heathen do not expect it. 
The light of nature and reason does not teach it. 

This doctrine was unknown, too, in the ancient Jewish and 
Christian world. The Jews had no thought of it ; and in the 
Christian church, during the first two centuries, it was neither 
advocated nor opposed. 

A species of restorationism was taught by Clement, and Or- 
igen, and others of the Alexandrian School, about the beginning 
of the third century; but the church soon discovered and dis- 
carded the error. From this period, we hear almost nothing of 
Universalism, in any form, until after the reformation from 
Popery. 

It is a remarkable fact, that many of those who deny the doc- 
trine of eternal punishment have no doubt that this doctrine is 
taught in the Bible. This is true of most modern infidels. It 
is also true of the Rationalists of Germany, who are no better 
than infidels. They have no doubt that the Bible teaches the 
doctrine of endless punishment ; though they feel under no obli- 
gations, on this account, to believe it. And the same may be 
said of most American Unitarians. These hope for a final and 
universal restoration, but found their hopes on their philosophy, 
and not on the Bible. The Bible, they admit, holds out no hope 
for the dying sinner. It leaves him in darkness. It reveals no 
deliverance for him beyond the grave. Still, the doctrine of 
eternal punishment is too dreadful to be believed, and they hope 
it is not true. 

Facts such as these are very convincing, as to the real doc- 
trine of the Scriptures. The language of Scripture is so plain 
and decisive as to constrain men, in opposition to all their pre- 
dilections, to admit that it does inculcate the doctrine of eternal 
punishment. 

Indeed, the language of the Bible, on this subject, is as plain 
and as strong, as that of almost any other book or writing in the 
world. It is as strong as the language of these Lectures. And 
by the same glosses and interpretations with which the Bible is 
made to teach the doctrine of universal salvation , my Lectures 
may be made to teach the same. I^have spoken freely, to be 



ETERNAL PUXISE3IEXT. 597 

sure, of the unquenchable and everlasting fire, and of eternal 
punishment; and the sacred writers do the same. And if, in 
their lips, it means universal salvation, why should it not mean 
the same in mine ? Why should not these Lectures be accepted 
as sound Universalism by those who insist on the Universalism 
of the Bible? 

I may go even further and ask, How, in consistency with such 
modes of interpretation, — how is it possible to teach, in words, 
any other than universal salvation ? In what way shall words 
be put together, so as to teach, on these principles, a proper, 
endless punishment? 



598 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LBCTUEE LVI. 

DIFFERENT FORMS OF UNIYERSALISM. 

Universalism is the doctrine of universal salvation, or that 
all men will finally be saved. Several schemes of Universalism 
have been proposed, or several theories adopted, on the ground 
of which to carry all men to heaven. 

The first form of Universalism, openly advocated in England 
and in this country, was that of Relly, Murray, Winchester, 
Huntington, and others. These men believed in the proper 
divinity and atonement of Christ, and that Christ literally obeyed 
the law, and suffered its penalty, for the whole human race. 
They taught that men must believe this doctrine, in order to 
come in possession of the purchased inheritance-; and that, 
sooner or later, in this world or the next, all men would believe 
it and be saved. The first separate congregation of Universal- 
ists in England was of this stamp, and was founded by Mr. 
Relly in 1760. This form of Universalism still continues in 
England, though it has long since disappeared among ourselves. 

A second class of Universalists insisted that the sins of men 
would be punished with everlasting destruction, while the sin- 
ners would be saved. In proof of this strange doctrine, they 
quoted and perverted the following passage from Paul : " If any 
man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss ; but he himself 
shall be saved, yet so as by fire" (1 Cor. iii. 15). I am not 
aware that this doctrine has now any living advocate. 

Next came the Universalism of the Necessarians or Fatalists. 
They denied the free agency and accountability of man, and 
that there is any real, valid distinction between sin and holiness, 
right and wrong. " One man does the will of God as much as 
another. Every man answers the end for which he was made, 



DIFFERENT FORMS OF UNIVEESALISM. 599 

and, of course, is a fair candidate for everlasting happiness." 
This form of the doctrine still lives among us, but is not very 
openly advocated. Its moral tendencies are too grossly perni- 
cious, — to say nothing of its absurdities, — to admit of its ever 
becomiug popular. 

Beyond and behind the above theories was that of a univer- 
sal restoration. This supposes that there will be punishment 
beyond the grave ; but that it will be entirely of a disciplinary 
character, intended and calculated for the good of the sufferer. 
It may continue, in some instances, for a very long period, but 
will terminate, at length, in a universal restoration. This 
form of doctrine was fully considered in the last two Lectures. 
It is plausible in appearance, and has many advocates among 
Unitarians as well as professed Universalists. It is that form 
of the error on which persons commonly fall back, when driven 
by their consciences, or their adversaries, to abandon its more 
glaring forms. 

There is yet another form of Universalism, propounded ^by 
the late Mr. Hosea Ballou, of Boston, which has prevailed widely 
in the denomination, superseding the old-fashioned Universalism 
of Relly and Winchester, and quenching the fires of hell at a 
stroke. Universalists of this class are all of them Unitarians. 
They deny the divinity and atonement of Christ, and the per- 
sonality and work of the Holy Spirit. They admit that men 
are sinners, in different degrees, but none of them entirely so. 
Of course they do not need a proper regeneration. These men 
believe the present life to be one, not of probation, but of right- 
eous retribution, in which every act of every man, whether good 
or evil, meets with a full and just recompense. The judgment 
of God is a present judgment, and both the rewards of obedience 
and the penalties of disobedience are all of them received here. 

This class of Universalists believe in a future life, but not 
one immediately succeeding the present, or which has any 
moral connection with it. The other life, upon which we shall 
enter together at the resurrection, will be a life by itself, in 
which the characters formed on earth will not affect us, and 
which will be to all a life of happiness. To make us acquainted 
with this future and happy life, is thought to be the principal 



600 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

object of the Christian revelation. It is in this sense that life 
and immortality are brought to light in the gospel. 

The novel character of this system, and its general prevalence 
among a portion of our fellow -men, require that it be carefully 
considered. In examining it, it will not be necessary to go 
into a consideration of those principles which it holds in common 
with other forms of error. I shall confine attention to the chief 
peculiarities of the system, which are the two following : — 

1. This life is a state, not of probation, but of righteous ret- 
ribution, where every act, whether good or evil, meets with a 
full and just recompense. 

2. The conditions of men in the other world are not in the 
least affected by their characters here, but all, of every char- 
acter, wake up there to endless happiness. 

If these two principles are sustained, the system before us is 
sustained ; but if these fall, the whole system falls with them. 
Let us, then, examine carefully these two fundamental prin- 
ciples. 

And, first, is this life a state of probation, or one of righteous 
retribution? Is it, or is it not, true, that God's final judgments 
are being continually executed, and that the actions of men, 
whether good or evil, meet with a full and final reward here? 

That the present life is one of probation, and not of retribu- 
tion, is evident, in the first place, from the character of it. We 
read its design in its adaptation. From beginning to end it is 
fitted, adapted, to be one of trial. Our existence in this world 
(which is but for a few days) is made up, to a great extent, of 
sudden and trying changes. We are turned over and over, 
driven this way and that, placed in various situations, and sub- 
jected to the influence of different and often conflicting motives, 
and all this, obviously, that we may be tried, — that our charac- 
ters may be formed and developed, and that it may be seen what 
manner of spirit we are of. God is so exhibiting his truth to 
the minds of his creatures, during their abode ^on earth, as to 
try, in the best manner, their faith ; and he is so surrounding 
them with mingled light and darkness, temptations and restraints, 
and is so visiting them with mercies and judgments, joys and 
sorrows, as most effectually to try their hearts, draw out their 



DIFFERENT FORMS OF UNI VERS ALISM. 601 

feelings, and prepare them for the decisions which await them 
hereafter. 

Such, in brief, is the present life ; and such it is known to be 
by all who have had experience of it. And from its very na- 
ture and character, the design of it, as I said, is manifest. It 
is altogether adapted to be a state of probation, and cannot 
reasonably be regarded in any other light. 

That this life is a state of probation, and not of righteous ret- 
ribution, we infer, secondly, from the fact that men are not 
treated here according to their characters. The righteous are 
often afflicted, and the wicked prospered. The righteous are 
the oppressed, and the wicked their oppressors and persecutors. 
The righteous are doomed to grapple with the dreaded ills of 
poverty, disease, and want, while the wicked roll in affluence, 
and have more than heart can wish. The best and holiest men 
are cut off by sudden death, while the vilest of men are spared, 
to curse the world by a length of years and an example of 
wickedness. Such is not* indeed, the invariable course of 
God's providence ; but that such is its frequent course, and has 
been so in all past ages, cannot be doubted. Such it was with 
Job ; which led his friends to conclude (in the spirit of those 
against whom we now reason) that Job must be a very wicked 
man. So it was, also, in the days of the Psalmist. He was 
distressed at the prosperity of the wicked, and could find no 
relief, till he looked away from present scenes to contemplate 
their miserable end (Ps. lxxiii. 3-20). So it was among the 
ancient heathen ; which led some of their philosophers into 
atheism, and others more rationally to conclude that there must 
be a future life, where the disorders of the present will be recti- 
fied, and all will be treated according to their works. And 
such is the frequent course of God's providence now. There is 
no denying it, and no accounting for it but upon the supposition 
that this life is a state of probation, and not one of full and final 
retribution. On the former supposition, all is consistent, all 
plain; but there is no reconciling the known facts of divine 
providence with the supposition that men have their retribution 
here. 

I know it will be said, that the seeming inequalities of provi- 

76 



602 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

dence are but visible, external things, and that these are fully 
compensated by the internal and invisible. The righteous en- 
joy a peace of conscience which more than makes up for all 
their outward sufferings, while the wicked are subjected to such 
tortures of conscience as serve to imbitter the whole cup of 
life. 

Admitting that there is some force in this reply (as in truth 
there is) , still it fails altogether to remove the difficulty. If the 
horrors of a guilty conscience are to be set over against the 
prosperity of the wicked, as constituting the full penalty of their 
wickedness, then these horrors ought regularly and constantly 
to increase, in proportion to their wickedness. The more wicked 
they are, and the longer they persist in doing evil, the greater 
their distress of conscience should be. But the facts of the case 
are, in general, the very opposite of this. When sinners first 
enter on their courses of wickedness, their consciences are ten- 
der, and they feel remorse ; but by resisting and stifling con- 
science, and persisting in sin, they soon come to be well-nigh 
past feeling. Their "consciences are seared, as with a hot 
iron." They can perpetrate the greatest wickedness, the most 
horrid crimes, such as once would have stung their souls to 
madness, and yet feel little or no remorse. Such are the natural 
consequences of long-continued transgressions, as they are expe- 
rienced in the present life. Such they are described in the 
Scriptures, and such they are declared to be in the confessions 
of pirates, robbers, murderers, and those who have been con- 
victed of the most enormous crimes. *And it is perfectly evi- 
dent, from facts like these, that remorse of conscience, such as 
is experienced in the present life, cannot constitute the penalty 
of the divine law, or any part of that penalty. It remains true, 
therefore, notwithstanding all that can be said as to distress of 
conscience, that the wicked are not treated in this life, eitiier 
externally or internally, according to their characters ; and con- 
sequently, that this life cannot be (as is claimed by Universal- 
ists) a state of full and final retribution. If such a retribution 
is ever to be rendered, it must be done in a future life ; for cer- 
tainly it is not rendered here. 

Thirdly : the supposition that this life is one of righteous 



DIFFERENT FORMS OF TINT VERS ALISM. 603 

retribution, where every transgressor suffers 'the fall reward of 
his deeds, is contradicted by the whole tenor of the gospel. 
On this ground, there is no such thing as forgiveness. Forgive- 
ness is a remission of the incurred penalty of the law. But this 
penalty, on the supposition before us, is never remitted. It is 
endured to the full. Consequently there is no forgiveness ; 
and all that we read in the Scriptures about forgiveness is a 
delusion. 

On this ground, too, there is no grace in the gospel. Grace 
is unmerited, undeserved favor ; but what undeserved favor is 
shown to those who receive, in this life, the full recompense of 
their deeds, — who are rewarded or punished exactly according 
to their deservings ? 

Indeed, the system before us excludes the gospel altogether. 
It is entirely and throughout a system of law. If men do well, 
they are rewarded according to law ; or, if they sin, they are 
punished according to law. Do» what they will, the law takes 
its course with them ; and the gospel, as a scheme of mercy, is 
excluded. 

The system we are considering is commonly spoken of as one 
of universal salvation; but this, again, is a gross misnomer. 
So far from universal salvation, it is not properly salvation at 
all. According to this doctrine, no sinner is saved. Merited 
punishment is never remitted. Every one suffers all the 
penalty he deserves. Consequently, every sinner is damned, 
not saved ; and the system is one, not of universal salvation, 
but of universal damnation. 

I remark once more : this system is contradicted by the whole 
testimony of Scripture on the subject. It is contradicted by 
those Scriptures which represent the divine judgment and final 
awards of the righteous and the wicked as not present, but 
future. According to the system before us, these are all 
present. The judgment of God is a present judgment ; and the 
rewards both of well and of evil doings are present things. 
But such is not the teaching of the Bible. " Say ye to the 
righteous that it shall be well with them ; for they shall eat of 
the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked, it shall be ill 
with him ; for the reward of his hands shall be given him " (Is. 



604 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

iii. 10, 11) . " He* that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved ; 
but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark xvi. 16). 
"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Gal. vi. 
7). "He hath appointed a day in which he will judge the 
world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained" 
(Acts xvii. 31). 

This system is contradicted by those Scriptures in which it is 
asserted that men do not receive the full reward of their deeds 
in the present life. Thus it is said by the Psalmist : "He hath 
not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us according to 
our iniquities ; for, as the heaven is high above the earth, so 
great is his mercy toward them that fear him " (Ps. ciii. 10, 11) . 
The following is the language of the devout Ezra : " After all 
that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great tres- 
pass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our 
iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this ; 
should we again break thy commandments, would st thou not be 
angry with us till thou hadst consumed us?" (Ez. ix. 13, 14.) 
It was said to Job, in the extremity of his sufferings : "Know, 
therefore, that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquities 
deserve" (Job. xi. 6). The mistake of those who hold that 
men are treated in this life exactly according to their characters 
is very like to that of the three friends of Job. They inferred, 
from the great afflictions of Job, that he was a very wicked 
man ; and the Universalist is constrained, by his system, to 
draw the same inference ; though he knows it is one which God 
expressly condemned. 

No more need be said in refutation of the first grand principle 
of this modern Universalism. We proceed, therefore, to the 
second ; which is, that the conditions of men, in the other world, 
are not at all affected by their characters here, but ali> of every 
description, wake up there to endless happiness. 

In refutation of this principle, I remark, first of all, that it is 
contradicted by the light of nature. The very heathen, who had 
no other light, knew better than to adopt so absurd a theory. 
Almost without an exception, they believed in a future life, and 
that the conditions of men in the other world were radically 
affected by the characters they had sustained here. If any doubt 



DIFFERENT FOKMS OF UNIVERSALISM. 605 

this, let thern consult the mythology of the ancient Egyptians; 
or the decisions of Minos and Rhadamanthus ; or the views of 
the Romans, as set forth in the sixth book of Virgil's iEneid. 
Plato taught that the moment any one enters the other life, " he 
comes into the presence of his Judge, by whom, if he is corrupt, 
he is sent down to Tartarus, a most horrid gulf or prison in the 
bowels of the earth ; but, if he is found righteous, he is dis- 
missed to the island of the blessed." A portion of those who 
go down to Tartarus, Plato regarded as incurable, and never to 
be released. 

It is admitted by Universalists that the Jews, in the time of 
Christ (with the exception of the Sadducees), believed in the 
eternity of future punishments ; — a doctrine which, it is said, 
they had learned from the heathen. Why, then, did not our 
Saviour teach them better ? As it was part of the object for 
which he came into the world to correct prevailing errors and 
delusions, and bear witness to the truth, why did he not correct 
the errors of his countrymen on this most important subject? 
Certainly, if the doctrine of eternal punishment is an error, and 
Christ sought to deliver his hearers from it, his language in 
regard to it was most extraordinary. It was such as confirmed 
his disciples in the error ; and not only his immediate disciples, 
but the great body of Christians in all periods since. 

But let us bring the principle under consideration directly to 
the test of Scripture. What say the inspired writers as to the 
question, whether the conditions of men hereafter are to be 
affected by their characters here ; and whether the future life is 
to be one of universal happiness ? 

Let us first inquire as to the condition of the righteous in the 
other world. Are they, or are they not, to be benefited there, 
in consequence of their goodness here? "Blessed are ye when 
men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of 
evil against you, falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceed- 
ing glad ; for great is your reward in heaven" (Matt. v. 12). 
"When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the 
lame, and the blind ; for they cannot recompense you ; for thou 
shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just " (Luke 
xiv. 14) . And what does our Saviour mean by the exhortation 



606 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

to lay up treasure in heaven, if our Condition in the other world 
has no connection with our actions here ? Paul says : n Our 
light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh out for us a 
far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." He says, also, 
in respect to himself: "I have fought a good fight, I have fin- 
ished my course, I have kept the faith ; henceforth there is laid 
up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the right- 
ous Judge, shall give me at that day" (2 Tim. iv. 8). The 
same apostle speaks of some, who were tortured, "not accepting 
deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection " (Heb. 
xi. 36). 

Such are some of the passages which speak expressly of the 
connection between this and the future life, so far as the rewards 
of the righteous are concerned. There are others, which refer 
both to the righteous and the wicked, and connect the future 
destinies of both classes with the transactions of the present 
life. Such is the story of the rich man and Lazarus. " Re- 
member that thou, in thy lifetime, receivedst thy good things, 
and likewise Lazarus evil things ; but now he is comforted, and 
thou art tormented." "I pray thee, therefore, father, that thou 
wouldst send him to my father's house ; for I have five brethren ; 
that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this 
place of torment" (Luke xvi. 25, 38). So also in our Saviour's 
account of the last judgment ; the awards are all based upon 
character sustained, — upon actions done, or not done, in the 
present life (Matt. xxv. 35-43). We have a similar account of 
the awards of the judgment, and the reasons of them, in the 
Revelation : " I saw the dead, small and great, stand before 
God ; and the books were opened ; and the dead were judged 
out of those things which were written in the books, according 
to their works" (Rev. xx. 12-15). 

Our Saviour presents the same view of the case in another 
passage, connecting the eternal destinies of men with their con- 
duct in the present life. " The hour is coming, in the which all 
that are in their graves shall hear his voice and come, forth, 
they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they 
that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation " (John v. 
28). Paul, too, says : " We must all appear before the judg- 



DIFFERENT FORMS OF UNIVERSALISM. 607 

merit-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done 
in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good 
or bad" (2 Cor. v. 10). 

I know not how it is possible for language to set forth more 
clearly than these passages do, the connection between the 
present and the future life ; resting the conditions of men there, 
whether of weal or woe, upon the characters which they have 
sustained here. 

It is pertinent, also, in this connection, to quote Scriptures to 
show, that a portion of the human race will be miserable in the 
future world ; since the proposition before us affirms that there 
are no miseries there ; that that life will be to all a life of hap- 
piness. How is it possible, by any fair interpretation, to recon- 
cile with this idea the story, or (if any please so to consider it) 
the parable, of the rich man and Lazarus? "The rich man 
died, and was buried, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in 
torment" (Luke xvi. 23). Take, also, the following represen- 
tations of our Saviour : " Be not afraid of them that kill the 
body, and after that have no more that they can do, but fear him 
which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell" (Luke 
xii. 5). "At the end of the world, the angels shall come forth, 
and shall sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast 
them into a furnace of fire ; there shall be weeping and gnash- 
ing of teeth" (Matt. xiii. 50). I ask not what meaning may, 
by any possibility of torture, be put upon passages such as these ; 
but what is their plain and obvious meaning ? What would any 
person, not committed to a system, and intent only on learning 
the sense, understand them to mean? What have they been 
understood to mean, by ninety-nine hundredths, and more, of 
the whole Christian world? There ought to be, and there can 
be, no question here. Our Saviour taught, as plainly as words 
can teach anything, that the conditions of men in the future 
world are affected, yea determined, by their characters here ; 
and that that world is not to all a state of happiness. The 
.wicked "shall go away into everlasting punishment." They shall 
be cast into a lake of fire, where "shall be weeping and gnash- 
ing of teeth," and where " the smoke of their torment ascendeth 
up forever and ever." 



608 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

I have dwelt longer on this particular form of Universalism, 
because it has of late years prevailed more extensively in the 
denomination than any other. I have drawn out its peculiar 
features, and have shown that the two grand principles, on 
which the whole fabric rests, have no foundation in reason, or 
the word of God. So far from this, they are contradicted and 
refuted by both. We are constrained to believe, therefore, that 
the system which has been examined, like each of the other 
forms of Universalism, is a delusion. It is a lure, a bait of the 
great adversary, by which he is ensnaring unwary souls, and 
dragging them down, by hundreds and thousands, to the pit 
below. 

There is yet another form of Universalism, more recent than 
the one which has been considered, and which is received with 
favor by a portion of the denomination. The advocates of this 
theory laugh (as well they may) at the miserable attempts of 
their brethren to explain away those parts of the Bible which 
speak of the future and eternal punishment of the wicked. 
They think it nobler, honester, better, on all accounts, to set 
aside these passages, — to discard them from the book of God. 
They think pretty well of the Bible in the general, and will 
receive so much of it as seems to them reasonable ; but cannot 
be bound by it as the standard of their faith. We honor the 
frankness of these men, however much we may detest their prin- 
ciples. If they do not like certain portions of the Bible, and 
are resolved not to receive them, they had better renounce them 
openly. If they are infidels in fact, they had better become 
such in name and in form. Then the Christian world will 
understand them, and know how to meet them. The question 
as to the divine authority and inspiration of the Bible, and the 
whole Bible, is not a new one. We have considered that, and 
know where we stand. When Universalism is brought to such 
an issue, we have no anxiety as to the result. 

It is incumbent on ministers of the gospel, at the present 
day, to be thoroughly acquainted with the different forms of 
Universalism, and especially with its more recent forms, that 
they may know how to meet them, and contradict their seduc- 
tive influences. It is not enough to understand and refute the 



DIFFERENT FOEMS OF UNI VERS ALISM. 609 

older systems, — such as were taught by Belly, and Murray, and 
Winchester, and others of the last century. These, though 
dating back less than a hundred years, have long since waxed 
old, and are ready to vanish away. A minister may refute all 
these, and yet scarcely touch the more recent theories which 
lie floating about in the minds of individuals at the present day. 
It becomes those who are set for the defence of the gospel to 
note the present aspects of error, and exert themselves for their 
removal. Let them watch the present movements of the great 
adversary of souls, lay open his schemes of falsehood, and ex- 
pose the cunning craftiness whereby he lies in wait to deceive. 
In this way they may hope to rescue those whom he is seeking 
to destroy. 



77 



610 CHRISTIAN TfiEOLOGY. 



LECTURE LYII. 

ANNIHILATION. 

There are persons, who shrink from either of the foregoing 
theories of Universalism, who yet deny the eternal punishment 
of the wicked. They hold that all of the human race who exist 
forever will be happy ; but that the incorrigibly wicked will 
cease to exist. They will be literally consumed, destroyed. 
In other words, they will be annihilated. 

Some tell us that the annihilation takes place at death. 
Those who hold this opinion are, in general, materialists. 
They deny that .man has any*proper soul, as distinct from the 
body. He is all body, altogether material ; and, consequently, 
when the body dissolves in death, the entire man goes out of 
existence. He ceases to be. 

This was the doctrine of the ancient Sadducees, who said 
that "there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit," whom 
our Saviour contradicted and refuted. "Ye do greatly err," 
said he, "not knowing the Scriptures, and the power of God" 
(Matt. xxii. 29). 

Other annihilationists, who are also materialists, believe that 
the final destruction takes place at the close of the judgment. 
There will be a resurrection, both of the just and the unjust, 
and all will stand together at the bar of God. But in the issue 
of the judgment, when the righteous will enter on an immortal 
life, the wicked will be annihilated. 

But neither of the above theories of annihilation is the one 
most commonly advocated at the present day. The most plau- 
sible view of the doctrine, and that most generally received, at 
least by those who have any claim to be regarded as evangelical 
Christians, is the following : Man has a soul distinct from the 



ANNIHILATION . 611 

body, which survives the body, and which was originally de- 
signed, and is adapted, to be immortal. But by sinning against 
God, he has forfeited and lost his immortality. The death 
threatened to our first parents, in case of transgression, was 
annihilation. The reason why the sentence was not immedi- 
ately executed upon them was, that they and their posterity 
might have a probation of grace. Christ has died for them ; 
free offers of mercy are made to them in his name ; and all who 
accept these offers will receive, in the most literal acceptation 
of the terms, eternal life. Their lost immortality will be re- 
stored to them, and will be a blessed and glorious immortality. 
But on all who refuse to accept of Christ during the time of 
their probation, the sentence of annihilation will be finally exe- 
cuted. They will be, in the most literal sense of the term, 
destroyed. Some suppose this destruction will take place im- 
mediately after the judgment ; others, that it will be preceded 
by a long period of suffering in the other world. But, ulti- 
mately, all the wicked will go out of existence. They will be 
as though they had never been. Such is the doctrine, so far as 
I have been able to gather it, from conversation with its advo- 
cates, and from their writings. 

In support of it, it is alleged first of all, that death literally 
signifies annihilation ; that so our first parents must have under- 
stood it ; and that wherever the word death is used in the 
Scriptures to set forth the final doom of the wicked, it can 
mean nothing else. But is it true that death literally and 
properly signifies annihilation ? What does it annihilate ? Not 
the body ; for the dead body still remains. It may be seen 
and handled as really as before. No one can doubt this, who 
ever saw a corpse, or assisted in preparing one for burial. The 
truth is, death, in its primary and literal signification, annihi- 
lates no material thing. It changes the form of living sub- 
stances ; in its issues, it dissolves them, and turns them back 
to their primary ingredients ; but death, I repeat, annihilates 
nothing. 

And if death cannot annihilate material substances, much less 
does it put an end to human souls. Who ever heard of a souPs 
being annihilated ? Where did it live ? To whom did it be- 



612 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

long? The sacred writers often use the words dead and death 
(in figurative senses) as applicable to the soul ; but never in 
the sense of annihilation. "I know thy works, that thou hast 
a name that thou livest, and art dead" (Rev. iii. 1). "She 
that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth" (1 Tim. v. 6). 
"We know that we have passed from death unto life, because 
we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth 
in death" (1 John iii. 14). "You hath he quickened, who 
were dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. ii. 1). "To be car- 
nally minded is death ; but to be spiritually minded is life and 
peace " (Rom. viii. 6). In all these, and in many like passages, 
the word death is used in reference to the soul, importing what 
is commonly called a spiritual death. But none of them sets 
forth the annihilation of the soul. So far from this, the very 
idea of annihilation is precluded. 

We also read in the Scriptures of " the second death " — the 
same which is sometimes called eternal death. But here again 
the idea of annihilation is precluded. " The fearful and unbe- 
lieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, 
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part 
in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the 
second death" (Rev. xxi. 8). Here we have a divinely inspired 
definition or description of the second death. We are told 
plainly what it is. The miserable subjects of it are not annihi- 
lated, but " have their part in the lake which burneth with fire 
and brimstone, which is the second death." 

But we are told that as eternal life imports an immortal exist- 
ence, eternal death, which is its opposite, must import annihila- 
tion. But does eternal life import simply eternal existence ; or 
not rather an eternally blessed existence ? On this point we 
may quote Mr. Hudson, one of the principal advocates of anni- 
hilation. "We disclaim," he says, "the representation that 
eternal life signifies mere eternal existence. We certainly be- 
lieve in eternal blessedness ; and we think this is implied in the 
phrase eternal life." 1 We may quote to the same purpose a 
greater than Mr. Hudson. "This," says our Saviour, "is life 
eternal ; that they might know thee, the only true God, and 

1 Christ our Life, p. 4. 



ANNIHILATION . 613 

Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John xvii. 3). We see, 
then, what is meant by eternal life, — not a mere eternal exist- 
ence, but an eternally blessed existence with God and with 
Christ in heaven. And if so, what must be its opposite, eter- 
nal death ? Certainly not the mere cessation of conscious exist- 
ence. This is not the suggested idea. The opposite of eternal 
holiness and blessedness in heaven can be no other than eternal 
sinning and suffering in hell. 

But there are other words besides death on which great stress 
is laid in this argument for annihilation. The wicked are said 
in the Scriptures to be consumed, destroyed, burned up, lost: 
a phraseology which imports that they pass utterly out of exist- 
ence ; or, which is the same, that they are annihilated. " The 
Lord preserveth all them that love hrm, but all the wicked will 
he destroy " (Ps. cxlv. 20). " Fear him who is able to destroy 
both soul and body in hell" (Matt. x. 28). "Who shall be 
punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the 
Lord, and the glory of his power" (2 Thess. i. 9). "For, be- 
hold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven ; and all the 
proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble ; and the 
day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, 
that it shall leave them neither root nor branch" (Mai. iv. 1). 
" He shall burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire " (Matt. iii. 
12). It is thought that these, and the like expressions, which 
occur with an awful frequency in the Bible, can import nothing 
less than the utter annihilation of the wicked. A thing which 
is consumed, destroyed, burned up, lost, can be no longer in 
existence. It is annihilated. Such is the literal and proper 
meaning of the words. 

But is this declaration true ? Is such the literal and proper 
meaning of the words in question ? Joshua and his army de- 
stroyed the Canaanites ; but did he annihilate them ? Nebu- 
chadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem; but did he annihilate it? 
Did not " its dust and ruins " still remain ? " O Israel, thou hast 
destroyed thyself; but in me is thy help" (Hos. xiii. 9). Did 
these Israelites annihilate themselves? If so, with what pro- 
priety is it added, "In me is thy help "? Our Saviour is said, 
"through death to have destroyed him who hath the power of 



614 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

death, that is the devil" (Heb. ii. 14). But did our Saviour 
literally annihilate the devil, when he hung upon the cross ? 

We may take the two strongest of the passages above quoted, 
— the strongest, probably, which the Bible contains ; and see if 
they import a literal annihilation. w Behold, the day cometh 
that shall burn as an oven ; and all the proud, and they that do 
wickedly, shall be stubble ; and the day that cometh shall burn 
them up, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." 
" He shall burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Suppose 
a thing to be burned up, so as to leave neither root nor branch ; 
is it thereby annihilated? By no means. To burn up and con- 
sume is only to change the form of things, — not to annihilate 
them. The fuel which we burn upon the hearth passes into 
other forms of existence, but not one particle is lost. Water 
may be evaporated ; gas may be burned ; but the substance of 
both still exists. The dissolved particles may be again col- 
lected, and they will be found to weigh as much as before. And 
so through the entire range of substances known to man. 
Through every disorganization and reconstruction, under the 
action of every element, — heat, light, electricity, no matter 
what, — the particles composing the substance still remain, and 
for aught we at present know, will remain forever. 

The state of the wicked in the other world is sometimes rep- 
resented by the word lost ; and to be lost is thought to be the 
same as annihilated. But a comparison of passages shows that 
there is no soundness in this argument. " What man of you, if 
he have an hundred sheep, and lose one of them, doth he not 
leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that 
which is lost, until he find it? " (Luke xv. 4.) This lost sheep, 
surely, was not annihilated ; for, in that case, it could never be 
found. "This my son was dead, and is alive again; he was 
lost, and is found " (Luke xv. 32). Here, the prodigal son is 
said to have been both dead and lost ; and yet he was all the 
while alive, and ere long was restored to his father. " The Son 
of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost " — not 
annihilated, for, in that case, there would be nothing left to seek 
or save — (Luke xix. 10) . 

It will be said, perhaps, that we use the word annihilate in 



ANNIHILATION . 615 

too strict a sense. The particles of which a man consists may 
never be literally annihilated ; yet, if they become so disorgan- 
ized and scattered that he no longer exists as a conscious, active 
being, he is, as to all punitive or practical purposes, annihilated. 
But how are the parts and particles of which a man consists to 
be so separated and scattered, that he is no longer a conscious, 
active being? If he were all particles, altogether material, per- 
haps this might be done. But we are now at issue with those 
who believe that man has a soul, as well as a body, — a soul 
that can exist without the body, — a soul that is not made up of 
particles, but is one simple, uniform, spiritual substance, like 
that of Grod ; and how is such a soul to lose permanently its 
active, conscious existence but by a literal annihilation? It 
cannot be disorganized and separated into elementary particles, 
for it is not made up of them. Such is not the nature of its 
substance. Obviously, a soul, such as we all possess, must 
exist on forever, a thinking, feeling, conscious, active being, 
or it must be annihilated. 

Finally, we are referred to certain passages in the Old Testa- 
ment, which are thought to teach annihilation. "In death 
there is no remembrance of thee ; in the grave, who shall give 
thee thanks?" (Ps. vi. 5.) ""Whatsoever thy hand findeth to 
do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor 
knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest " (Ecc. 
ix. 10) . " Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, 
in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth; he return- 
eth to his earth ; in that very day his thoughts perish" (Ps. 
cxlvi. 3,4). Jeremiah says of the princes and wise men of Baby- 
lon : "I will make them drunk, and they shall sleep a perpet- 
ual sleep, and not awake, saith the king, whose name is the 
Lord of hosts" (Jer. li. 57). 

My first remark in regard to these passages is, that if they 
prove anything, they prove too much for the class of men with 
whom I now reason. They prove that the cessation of active, 
conscious existence takes place in death, and pervades the en- 
tire region of the grave. " In death, there is no remembrance 
of thee; in the grave, who shall give thee thanks?" "There 



616 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the 
grave whither thou goest." 

But the probability is that these and the like passages have 
no reference at all to the subject before us. Some of them 
refer to the state of the body, which lies unconscious in the dust. 
Others go to show that not even the souls of the dead have any 
longer an active interest and concern — such as they once 
had — in the affairs of this life. "His breath goeth forth; he 
return eth to his earth ; in that very day his thoughts perish." 
As much as to say, in the moment of death, the designs, the 
plans of men for this world are all cut off. The rich fool in the 
gospel was planning to pull down his barns, and build greater, 
and to enjoy life for many years. But death came unexpectedly, 
and in that very day his thoughts perished. 

I have no occasion here to go into a consideration of argu- 
ments from reason, or from the divine perfections, against the 
eternal punishment of the wicked, and in favor of annihilation ; 
as these have been fully examined in a previous Lecture. 

It remains that I urge arguments to disprove the doctrine 
which has been considered ; to show that the wicked, in the 
other world, will not be annihilated, but will exist and be pun- 
ished forever as they deserve. 

1. The theory of annihilation contradicts palpably and con- 
fessedly the commonly received doctrine of the immortality of 
the human soul. The arguments from reason and nature in favor 
of the soul's immortality are some of them of the most convinc- 
ing character. They are so strong that all nations, even where 
the light of the gospel has not shined, have held to the doc- 
trine. 1 The sense of accountableness, which every human being 
feels, and of which he can never entirely rid himself, directs 



1 " The savages of North America, the Indians of Mexico, the islanders of the Pacific, 
the races of Southern Africa, who seem to dwell in the shadow land that lies between 
the beastly and the human, Bushmen and New Zealanders, Kamschadales, and Fijis, 
Peruvians and Esquimaux, Papuans and Caribs, the sad-eyed natives of Hispaniola and 
the fierce Patagonians, swift of foot ; the scorched barbarians of the South, and the 
bleached barbarians of the North, without exception, confess, fearfully and grotesquely 
enough, but all the more vehemently for that, their anticipation of another life. The 
form which the anticipation assumes may be fanciful, but the anticipation is clear and 
deep ;— clear enough not to be obscured by superstition ; deep enough not to be obliter- 
ated by misery or fear." — Chris. Examiner ibr June, 1861, p. 18. 



ANNIHILATION. 617 

him to a future, where every one must give an account of him- 
self to God. Then the unequal distribution of rewards and 
punishments in the present life points, infallibly, in the same di- 
rection. If God is a righteous moral governor and judge, then 
there must be another world, where the disorders of the present 
will be rectified, and every one will be treated according to his 
works. And then the capacities and faculties of the human 
soul, all fitted and adapted for a measureless improvement, show 
clearly that it was made for eternity. This argument is as con- 
clusive upon the final destiny of the soul, as is that drawn from 
the different structures of animals in regard to their different 
habits and modes of life. 

These arguments from nature, as to the immortality of the 
soul, are all of them confirmed by. the clearer light of revelation. 
Even in the Old Testament, we have enough to convince us, that 
while the body and the brute are mortal, the human spirit is im- 
mortal. "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, 
and the spirit of the brute that goeth downward to the earth" 
(Ecc. iii. 21). "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it 
was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it" (Ecc. xii. 
7) . "They that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some 
to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" 
(Dan. xii. 2). But it is in the gospel, emphatically, that "life 
and immortality are brought to light," — immortality, not for a 
particular class of men, but for all. Whether righteous or 
wicked, all have entered upon an existence which is never to 
end. Now, it is objection enough to the theory of annihilation, 
that it contradicts, confessedly and palpably, this great doctrine 
of immortality. For all the wicked who die in their sins, there 
is, we are told, no immortality. They are to be annihilated. 
Shame upon the men, living under the glorious light of the gos- 
pel, whose opinions on this subject are more gross and false than 
those of the heathen ! % 

2. Annihilation is no proper punishment for sin, and cannot 
be regarded as the penalty of God's law. According to the 
doctrine which has been considered, annihilation is the penalty 
of God's law. This was the death threatened to our first parents, 
and the death which will ultimately come upon all who obey not 

78 



618 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

the gospel. Thus, Mr. Green, one of its teachers, asks : "What 
is the penalty of the law? Not life in misery, but death. The 
wages of sin is death, The soul that sinueth, it shall die. Sin, 
when it is finished, bringeth forth death .-—understanding by 
death, in all these passages, not life in misery, but annihilation" 
(Tract, p. 3). 

Now, in opposition to all such statements, we insist that anni- 
hilation is not, and cannot be, the penalty of the divine law. 
We know what the penalty of the law is, for it has once been 
executed. It was executed upon the angels when they sinned. 
For them there was no probation of grace. They had no re- 
prieve. The penalty of the law fell upon them in the moment 
of their transgression, and has been upon them ever since. And 
what was it? They were not annihilated, but "cast down to 
hell," where they "are reserved in everlasting chains, under 
darkness, unto the judgment of the great day" (2 Pet. ii. 4; 
Jude 6) . Again : the penalty of the divine law will be inflicted 
on all the wicked at the close of the judgment. The wicked 
will then be brought up together for trial. They will have a 
trial ; at the close of which their sentence is pronounced, and 
is immediately executed. And what is it? "Depart, ye cursed, 
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." 
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment" (Matt. 
xxv. 41, 46). 

I know it is said that annihilation is everlasting punishment, 
because it is everlasting in its consequences. But as well might 
it be said that hanging or flogging is everlasting punishment, 
because these are everlasting in their consequences. Indeed, 
with more propriety may it be said of the ordinary modes of 
human punishment that they are everlasting ; for they are fol- 
lowed by a train of consequences that will have no end ; where- 
as* to the subjects of it, annihilation cuts off all consequences. 
A perpetual nonentity is beyond the reach* of consequences for- 
ever. 

And this shows us, that annihilation, so far from being the 
penalty of the law, is, in no proper sense of the term, a punish- 
ment. On the contrary, it cuts off all punishment. It renders 
it impossible that the subjects of it should ever be punished 



ANNIHILATION. 619 

more. Punishment necessarily implies the existence of a sub- 
ject to bear it. If it is a just punishment, it implies the exist- 
ence of a guilty subject, who feels, or who ought to feel, that 
his punishment is just. But, on the theory before us, the subject 
of punishment is no longer in existence. He is a nonentity — 
nothing; and how is it possible to punish nothing? 

Mr. Green does not seem quite satisfied, after all, to make 
annihilation the whole penalty of the law ; and so he couples 
with it, at least in many instances, long periods of antecedent 
suffering. "The doom of the wicked," he says, "will be incon- 
ceivably dreadful. The duration of their suffering may be a 
long period prior to their final destruction." , It is in this way 
that he accounts for "the different degrees of punishment" 
among the finally lost. (Tract, pp. 6, 10.) But this shows, 
still further, that annihilation, so far from being a punishment, 
is rather to be considered as a release. How must the miserable 
subjects of these dreadful antecedent sufferings look forward to 
it, and pray for it, as their only remaining hope ? The devils 
who, we are told, are to be annihilated, 1 have already been 
suffering for many thousands of years, and are yet to suffer we 
know not how long. With what intense desire must they be 
looking forward to the- time, when their existence, and with it 
all their miseries, shall come to a final end? And yet we are 
told that this longed-for annihilation is the proper penalty of 
the divine law, and all the penalty which is threatened to the 
transgressor ! 

3. The doctrine of annihilation is disproved by many Scrip- 
tures. We have before seen that it is not proved by those 
passages which are most relied upon to support it ; as where 
the wicked are threatened with death, destruction, perdition, 
etc. These words signify, to the miserable subjects of them, 
the destruction, not of their being, but of their well-being; the 
loss of spiritual life ; the death and ruin of all their comforts 
and hopes. We are now to show that the annihilation of the 
wicked is contradicted by a vast amount of Scripture testimony. 
It is contradicted in the Old Testament. The prophet Daniel 
says of the wicked in the last great day, not that they are to 

1 See Mr. Green's Tract, p. 10. 






620 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

be annihilated, but they are raised "to shame and everlasting 
contempt " (Dan. xii. 2) . In the prophecy of Isaiah, the sinners 
in Zion are represented as afraid, not of annihilation, but of 
something infinitely worse. " Who among us shall dwell with 
the devouring fire ? Who among us shall dwell with the ever- 
lasting burnings?" (Is. xxxiii. 14.) 

But, in the New Testament, the evidence against annihilation, . 
and in proof of eternal sinning and suffering, thickens, and 
becomes more decisive. " Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting 
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels " (Matt. xxV. 41). I 
know it is said, though the fire is everlasting, those who are 
plunged into it ftiay not live and suffer in it forever. But this 
is a mere quibble. Suppose the sentence had run thus : Depart, 
ye cursed, into a fire that shall burn a hundred or a thousand 
years ; who could think otherwise than that the persons so 
sentenced were to suffer in that fire as long? Why should the 
duration of the fire be specified at all, if the suffering was not 
to be commensurate with it ? " These shall go away into ever- 
lasting punishment" (Matt. xxv. 46). But everlasting punish- 
ment, we have before seen, implies the everlasting existence of 
its guilty subjects to endure it. Annihilation ends all punish- 
ment.; since nought remains subsequent to this which can.be 
punished. 

It is said of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the surrounding 
cities, that, "giving themselves over to fornication, and going 
after strange flesh," they " are set forth as examples, suffering 
the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7). It is pretended, I 
know, that the language here refers to the guilty cities., and not 
to their inhabitants. But was it the cities or their inhabitants, 
that gave themselves over to fornication, and went after strange 
flesh? Besides; the cities, as such, have not suffered the 
vengeance of eternal fire. They were in a little time consumed 
and sunk ; and the Dead Sea has rolled its waves over them 
ever since. 

The Apostle Paul tells us that " unto them who, by patient 
continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, honor, and immor- 
tality, God will render eternal life." But "unto them that are 
contentious, and do not obey the truth," what will he render? 



ANNIHILATION. 621 

Not annihilation, but r ' indignation and wrath, tribulation and 
anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Rom. ii. 8, 9) . 
To all such " is reserved the blackness of darkness forever " 
(Judel3). 

At the conclusion of his parables of the tares, and of the net, 
our Saviour sets forth the final destination of the wicked. "At 
the end of the world, the angels shall come forth, and shall 
sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into 
a furnace of fire. There shall be wailu^g and gnashing of 
teeth" (Matt. xiii. 5, 11; see, also, Luke xiii. 28). The 
phraseology here used implies a state of intense and continued 
suffering, and can never be made consistent with the doctrine 
of annihilation. 

In other passages, our Saviour is, if possible, even more ex- 
plicit. "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for 
thee to enter into life maimed, than, having two hands, to go 
into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched : where 
their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy 
foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt 
into life, than, having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the 
fire that never shall be quenched : where their worm dieth 
not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend 
thee, pluck it out : it is better for thee to enter into the king- 
dom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast 
into hell fire : where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
quenched" (Mark ix. 43-48). 

And what are we to think of the following passages from the 
Eevelation? "If any man worship the beast and his image, 
and receive his mark on his forehead, or on his hand, the same 
shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured 
out without mixture into the cup of his indignation ; and he 
shall.be tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence of 
the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the 
smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever ; and 
they have no rest, day nor night, who worship the beast and his 
image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name " (Rev. 
xiv. 9-11). Again, the writer of this book — speaking of the 
wicked just before the end of the world, who are to go forth in 



622 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

great numbers for the destruction of God's people — says : 
" There came down a fire from God out of heaven and devoured 
them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake 
of fire and brimstone, where the beast and *the false prophet 
are, and shall be tormented, day and night, forever and ever " 
(Rev. xx. 10). Mr. Green has no way to evade the force of 
these passages but by saying, that the words "forever and ever " 
may signify a limited duration. (Tract, p. 6.) But we have 
seen, in a former Lecture, that such a supposition is impossible. 
The writers of the New Testament have used these words more 
than twenty times, and the writer of the Apocalypse fourteen 
times, and always (unless it be the cases before us) to denote 
an endless duration. And yet, by these decisive, unambiguous 
words, is here set forth the duration of the miseries of the lost. 
And now, if this does not decide the question, against annihi- 
lationists and universalists, as to the endless punishment of the 
wicked, we may well despair of its ever being decided by words. 
No form of speech, more convincing or decisive than that which 
has been exhibited, can ever be used. 

I shall quote but another passage in proof of the endless sin- 
ning and suffering of the wicked, and that shall be from this 
same wonderful book — the Revelation. Away down the track 
of time, beyond the millennium, beyond the final judgment, and 
when the righteous have ail entered upon their eternal reward, 
we are told of some who are not in the heavenly city. They 
are not annihilated, but they are. excluded. And who are they? 
What is their character and state? "Without are dogs, and 
sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and 
whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." And are these guilty 
beings irrecoverably in this state of ruin and sin? Are they 
without hope? " He that is unjust, let him be unjust still ; and 
he that is filthy, let him be filthy still " (Rev. xxii. 11, 15). 

4. I urge once more against the annihilation of the wicked, 
that such an event would frustrate the ultimate end and pur- 
pose of God in their creation. " The Lord," we are told, "hath 
made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day 
of evil" (Prov. xvi. 4). God will be glorified in all his crea- 
tures ; in all his works. He was as really glorified in Pharaoh 



ANNIHILATION. 623 

as in Moses, though not, of course, in the same way. "In very 
deed, for this cause have I raised thee up, for to show my power 
in thee, and that my name may be declared throughout all the 
earth" (Ex. ix. 16). The finally miserable, though lost to 
themselves, are not lost to the universe, or to God. "We are 
unto God a sweet savor of Christ," says Paul, "both in them 
that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one we are the 
savor of death unto death, and to the other of life unto life" 
(2 Cor. ii. 16). "Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I 
be glorious" (Is. xlix. 5). God will be glorified in the final 
doom of his enemies, and the universe will be benefited by 
means of them forever. Like the Sodomites of old, they " are 
set forth as examples, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." 
They are held up, in terror em, before the universe, to declare 
God's justice and deter from sin. There are certain traits of 
God's holy character, of the utmost importance to him as a 
righteous moral governor, — such as his inflexible regard for the 
honor of his law, his inviolable truth, his glorious justice, his 
holy hatred of sin, and his determination to punish it as it de- 
serves forever, — which cannot be adequately displayed but by 
his inflicting upon incorrigible transgressors the just penalty of 
his law, which is eternal death. To cut off this penalty by an 
act of annihilation would be to defeat these holy purposes, and 
show that God had made at least a portion of his intelligent 
creatures in vain. We may be sure, therefore, that this will 
never be. God's truth, his justice, his honor and glory as a 
moral governor, his regard for the best interests of his holy 
kingdom, alike forbid it. Of course, it can never be done. 
The wicked will sin on and suffer on ; they will grow more and 
more hardened and miserable, to all eternity. " The smoke of 
their torment ascendeth up forever and ever." 

Some tell us that the doctrine of annihilation, if it be an 
error, is an amiable one, and a harmless one, — one which can 
be followed by no injurious results. But we cannot be of this 
opinion. All error is more or less dangerous. But the one 
we have considered is, in some of its aspects, peculiarly so. 
It detracts from the fear of God, and from the regard which we 
all ought to have for his holy law. In the same proportion it 



624 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

diminishes our sense of the great evil of sin. The Apostle 
Paul tells us that " by the law " — the whole law — not only the 
precept, but the penalty, — "by the law is the knowledge of 
sin." And this is true. When we look at the fearful penalty 
which God has denounced against sin, — the greatest which he 
can inflict or we endure, — one differing in degree according to 
the degree of our guilt, but in all cases measureless in its dura- 
tion ; we see, at once, that sin must be an infinite evil. Or, if 
any dislike the term infinite, it must be the greatest evil which 
we can possibly commit, and deserves the greatest punishment 
which we can endure. Such are the views which the commonly 
received doctrine of eternal punishment is fitted to impress upon 
us as to the evil of sin. But if we take away from the fearful 
penalty of the law ; if we remove it or cut it short by annihi- 
lation ; just so much we weaken the law. We detract from its 
majesty and its binding authority. Our sense of the evil of 
sin is proportionably removed, and the probability is that we 
may never see it in its true light, and repent of it in dust and 
ashes. 

By detracting from our sense of the inviolable strictness of 
God's law, and the dreadful evil of transgressing it, this doc- 
trine of annihilation tends to diminish the worth, and even the 
work, of redeeming mercy. Redemption from everlasting burn- 
ings is one thing ; deliverance from annihilation is quite an- 
other. The former requires an infinite atonement ; the latter, 
being a mere act of power, may be accomplished in a different 
way. The former creates an exigency and a necessity for the 
interposition of the Eternal Son of God ; the latter may be 
effected immediately by the Father, or, if he pleases, through 
the instrumentality of some inferior being. Hence the connec- 
tion logically, and in frequent instances actually, between the 
doctrine of annihilation and Arian or Socinian speculations as 
to the person of Christ. 

The doctrine we have considered has also a lax moral ten- 
dency. It removes some of the strongest motives which God 
in his mercy has given us to deter from sin. The penalty 
which God has affixed to his law is a dreadful penalty, warning 
us off from the practice of sin by every motive of horror and 



ANNIHILATION". 625 

of fear. And yet even this is no more than sufficient to sustain 
the authority of law, and in myriads of instances has proved 
insufficient to prevent transgression. In full view of the de- 
vouring fire and everlasting burnings, creatures have had the 
madness to transgress. What, then, must be the effect of dimin- 
ishing the penalty of God's law, and ultimately of taking it 
quite away, — of quenching the devouring fire, and dissipating 
the column of smoke and flame which God has assured us shall 
ascend up from the bottomless pit forever? 

The natural effect of such teaching is perfectly obvious. It 
tends to weaken those good moral influences which God, in his 
mercy, has thrown about us. It tends to encourage the wicked 
in their evil courses, and to make them bold and easy in their 
sins. The worst they have to fear is annihilation, which puts 
an end at once to all suffering ; and they are quite willing to 
meet such an issue, if they may be indulged at present in the 
vices which they love. 

I do not say that all believers in annihilation reason in this 
way, and draw from it encouragement in the practice of wicked- 
ness. By no means. But I do say that the natural tendencies 
of the doctrine are such as I have indicated ; and, were it gener- 
ally to prevail, these tendencies would soon be manifest in the 
utter prostration of evangelical religion, both in principle and 
practice. 

Let us, then, avoid the insidious error. Mischief is concealed 
under it, and will ere long spring out of it. " A little leaven 
leaveneth the whole lump." " Whatsoever a man soweth, that 
shall he also reap.*' 

• 79 



626 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUEE LYIII. 



THE SABBATH. 



In calling your attention to the weekly Sabbath, it is pro- 
posed, first, to inquire as to the origin of it. This blessed 
institution originated in Paradise, and was given to man imme- 
diately after his creation. This is evident, — 

1 . From the account which is given of it in the second chap- 
ter of Genesis. " On the seventh day, God ended his work 
which he had made ; and he rested," or kept a Sabbath, " on 
the seventh day, from all his work which he had made. And 
God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in 
it he had rested," or kept a Sabbath, " from all his work which 
he had made " (Gen. ii. 2, 3). By sanctifying this day of his 
rest, or Sabbath, we are to understand that God set it apart, 
and consecrated it as a holy day. And in blessing it, he ap- 
pointed that, to all who should observe it in a proper manner, 
a blessing should follow. Here, then, we have a full and formal 
institution of the Sabbath. It commenced with the creation, 
and was among the first institutions that were given to the new- 
made world. 

2. That the Sabbath was instituted at this time is further evi- 
dent from the early and universal division of time into weeks. 
Two periods have been fixed upon for the commencement of 
the Sabbath. The first is that mentioned above ; the other is 

» during the sojourn of the Israelites in the wilderness. But on 
the latter supposition, how are we to account for the early and 
universal division of time into weeks? There is a natural 
reason why time should be divided into moons or months, and 
also into years ; but there is no natural reason for its being 
divided into weeks of seven days. And yet it was so divided, 



THE SABBATH. 627 

by the Patriarchs, who lived long before the time of Moses, and 
by heathen nations who never heard of him. Thus God says to 
Noah : " Yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain on the earth " 
(Gen. vii. 4). And when Noah had sent out the dove from the 
ark, and she returned, he tarried seven days, and sent her forth 
again ; and then he tarried seven other days, and sent her forth 
again (Gen. viii. 10, 12) . And so Laban, when he had deceived 
Jacob in regard to his wife, said : "Fulfil her week, and we will 
give thee this other also " (Gen. xxix. 27). No good reason can 
be assigned for this early and peculiar division of time, except 
that it was so divided, at the creation, by God himself. 

3. We have further evidence of the primeval institution of 
the Sabbath, in that the ancient heathen nations not only 
divided their time into weeks, but regarded the seventh as a 
sacred day. Of this the learned Mr. Seldon has collected 
many proofs. 1 The following passages occur in Homer : " The 
seventh arose, a sacred day." And again: "The seventh day 
came, when all things were laid aside." Eusebius represents 
Solon as proclaiming the seventh to be a holy day. Clemens 
Alexanclrinus says : "Not only the Hebrews, but also the Greeks 
regarded the seventh day as sacred." 

The seventh day was heM to be sacred among the ancient 
Tuscans and Eomans. Thus Dion says, in his Eoman history : 
"The same Sabbath which was in use among the Jews, obtained 
also among the Greeks and Romans." And Postell remarks 
that, " next to the Jews, the Eomans were the first observers 
of the Sabbath." Josephus, in his work against Apion, very 
confidently asserts that " there is not any city of the Grecians, 
nor any of the barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither 
our custom of resting on the seventh day has not come." 2 Even 
the Hindoos have a day which they call Sunday, and which " is 
regarded as more sacred than any other day of the week." 

In view of these testimonies, it cannot be doubted that^ 
among most of the ancient heathen nations the seventh day was 
regarded as a sacred day. It was Saturn's day, from which our 
name Saturday is derived. And now, in what way shall this 

1 De Jure Nat. et Gentium, Lib. iii. c. 16. 

2 Book ii. Sect. 40 ; Allen's India, p. 399. 



628 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

fact be accounted for, but upon the supposition that the seventh 
clay was set apart and sanctified, by divine authority, from the 
beginning of the world ? 

4. The manner in which Moses first speaks of the Sabbath to 
the Israelites shows that it was an institution with which they 
had been long acquainted. They were now in the desert, and 
manna had been given for their support, with the injunction 
that they were to secure only enough each day for their daily 
sustenance. But it came to pass on the sixth day of their 
week, without any particular direction on the subject, that they 
gathered twice as much as on other days. How came they to 
do this, unless they had been accustomed to observe the seventh 
day as one of rest? However, the rulers of the congregation 
came and told Moses, "and Moses said unto them, This is that 
which the Lord hath said : To^morroW is the rest of the Holy 
Sabbath unto the Lord" (Ex. xvi. 23). The whole account 
proves, conclusively, that here was not the origin of a new 
institution in Israel, but only an incidental reference to one 
which had been long known and observed. 

We regard it, therefore, as proved, beyond a doubt, that the 
weekly Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, immediately after 
the creation of the world. As it was given to commemorate 
the work of creation, why should it not. have been instituted at 
that period? What so proper time in which to commence it? 
Why should there have been a delay of more than two thousaud 
years ; and then the institution be given to a single people, 
who had no more interest in observing it than all the rest of 
mankind ? 

We remark, secondly, in regard to the Sabbath, that the 
obligation to observe it is universal and perpetual. This is 
evident, — 

1. From what has been already said. If the Sabbath was 
instituted in Paradise, then doubtless it was instituted for 
man, — everywhere. It was instituted for the race. No reason 
can be given why it should have been instituted so early after 
the creation, if it was intended only for the Jews. Then, — 

2. The law of the Sabbath constitutes an important part of 
the decalogue, or moral law. The ten commandments differ, 



THE SABBATH. 629 

in several respects, from the other written commands of God. 
They were delivered, in an audible voice, from the top of Sinai, 
not to Moses alone, but directly to all the congregation of 
Israel. They were also written, not by Moses in a book, but 
by the finger of God on tables of stone. They were written 
on stone to denote their everlasting durability, — that they 
should never be revoked, and never would vanish away. And, 
with the exception of the fourth, they are all of them, confess- 
edly, of perpetual obligation. How, then, can it be doubted 
that the same is true of the fourth commandment ? Why should 
this be thrust in among nine others, which we know are binding 
upon all people, in all ages, and the same honors be put upon 
this as upon either of them, unless this, too, is equally binding ; 
unless this is of universal and perpetual obligation? 

The fourth commandment not only stands in the midst of the 
other nine, but it forms a very considerable and most important 
part of them. The two tables of the law would be incomplete 
without it. The first four of these commandments were written 
on the first table, and enjoin the duties which we owe more 
directly to God. The last six were written on the second 
table, and contain the duties which we owe to man. But take 
away the fourth ^commandment, and the first table would be 
incomplete. We should, in that case, have services enjoined 
to be rendered directly to God, but should have no time 
appointed for their performance. The time for performing 
religious duties would be left to the choice of individuals ; and 
it is easy to see that, in this wicked world, there would soon 
be no religion at all. 

The fourth commandment is also distinguished among the 
rest, because it is expressed with greater fulness and particular- 
ity, and because it intends to support them all. Take away the 
fourth commandment, and with it the Sabbath, and the force of 
every command would be weakened and measurably destroyed. 
Each command in the decalogue tends, in some way, to 
strengthen the others ; but the institution of the Sabbath has a 
peculiar tendency to strengthen and enforce them all. We 
infer, therefore, with the highest assurance, that the obligation 
to observe the Sabbath is universal and perpetual. If men are 



630 ' CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

bound, everywhere, to honor their parents, and to abstain 
from murder, adultery, and theft ; they are equally bound to 
"remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy." 

3. We infer the universal obligation of the Sabbath from the 
fact that the ends to be answered by it are of universal interest 
and concern. The design of any divine institution may be 
learned from the ends which it is fitted to answer* If these 
ends have respect only to one particular nation or period, then 
we have a right to limit the institution to that same nation or 
period. But if the ends to be answered are interesting alike to 
all nations and to all time, we infer that the institution was 
intended for all. Now, it is an obvious fact that no end or 
purpose can be thought of, which the Sabbath was ever fitted to 
answer, which is not of equal interest now. Was this sacred 
day set apart as a season for commemorating the glories of 
creation? But all men are equally interested in creation, and 
may with equal propriety be called upon to celebrate its glories. 
Or was the Sabbath instituted to afford a grateful season of rest 
to laboring and weary mortals ? But men of all ages and coun- 
tries are alike doomed to labor, and stand alike in need of rest. 
Or was the Sabbath instituted to furnish a statedly recurring 
opportunity for religious worship and improvement? But all 
men have equal need of such an opportunity, and without it 
their spiritual interests must essentially suffer. If our first 
parents needed a Sabbath for the ends here specified, in their 
original state of innocence and purity, much more do their 
fallen descendants need a Sabbath, who are naturally averse to 
religion, and are doomed to eat their bread in the sweat of their 
face. 

4. The ancient prophets and our Saviour speak of the Sab- 
bath as not to terminate with the Jewish dispensation, but as to 
be continued and observed under the gospel, God promises, 
by Isaiah, that, in gospel times, when his house shall be called 
a house of prayer for all people, "those w T ho keep his Sabbath 
from polluting it, and take hold of his covenant, shall be 
brought to his holy mountain, and be made joyful in his house 
of prayer" (Is. Ivi. 6, 7). Here is an express promise that 
the Sabbath shall be continued under the gospel, and that 



THE SABBATH. 631 

abundant spiritual blessings shall rest- on those who faithfully 
observe it. 

Our Saviour, too, when predicting the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, which was to be accomplished under the gospel dispensa- 
tion, says : "Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, 
neither on the Sabbath day ; " — a clear intimation that he in- 
tended the Sabbath should exist, and be observed, under the 
gospel (Matt. xxiv. 20). 

5. Our Saviour's, declaration, "The Sabbath was made for 
man," proves incontestably that it was intended for all people. 
The institution was not given for the Jews only, or for any par- 
ticular place or period, but for men, — for all men. It was 
given to the race, and was intended to be observed by the race 
universally. 

6. The Sabbath is represented in the Scriptures as a type of 
heaven (Heb. iv. 1-11) . It may be regarded as a law of typical 
institutions, that the type continues until the antitype is realized. 
Thus the bloody rites of the old dispensation, which prefigured 
the death of Christ, continued in full force and validity until his 
blood was shed upon the cross ; in which eventful hour, — the 
hour of the crucifixion, — they passed finally away. But on this 
principle, the Sabbath, which typifies the rest of heaven, must 
continue until it is swallowed up and lost in its bright antitype ; 
until all the Sabbath-keepers of earth are received up to enjoy 
their long Sabbath in heaven. In other words, it must continue 
until the general conflagration and the end of the world. It was 
instituted at the creation of the world, and will continue in full 
force and validity till earth and time shall be no more. 

I recollect but one ' passage of Scripture which has been 
cited, with any show of reason, as in opposition to the views 
which have been here expressed. It has been taught, by some, 
that the Apostle Paul reckons the Sabbath among the abolished 
institutions of the Jewish religion. "Let no man judge you in 
meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new 
moon, or of the Sabbath days" (Col. ii. 16). But it is most 
likely, from the connection, that by Sabbath days, in this in- 
stance, the apostle intended the abolished Jewish festivals, which 
are sometimes denominated Sabbaths. Or, if he referred to the 



632 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

weekly Sabbath at all, it must have been to the Jewish Sabbath, 
which was observed on a different day from that of the Christians. 
He certainly could not have referred to that sacred day, on which 
he, with other apostles, and all the early Christians, were ac- 
customed to come together to break bread, and engage in the 
solemn services of public worship, and which was commonly 
known among them as "the Lord's day." 

It may be necessary to remark, before concludiug this topic, 
that although the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise, and was 
designed to be continued to the end of the world, still, in con- 
nection with the Hebrew commonwealth, it received various 
modifications, in accordance with the circumstances of the 
times. Observances and penalties were connected with it, — for 
example, the death penalty for its violation, — which had respect 
solely to the Jewish people. Of course, those additions passed 
away with the dispensation which gave them birth ; while the 
original institution remains the same, and will continue, to the 
end of time. 

Our third general remark in relation to this subject is, that, 
under the Christian dispensation, the Sabbath is to be observed 
on the first day of the week. But here we shall be met, at once, 
with an objection. The Sabbath, it will be said, was instituted 
on the seventh day of the week ; and the command in the deca- 
logue requires the observance of the seventh day. If, then, this 
command is still binding, and the institution is perpetuated 
under the gospel, why is not the same day to be observed ? 

To this we answer, that neither the original institution of the 
Sabbath,' nor the command in the decalogue, confines or fixes 
its observance to the seventh day of our- week. God made the 
world in six days, and sanctified and blessed the seventh ; but 
there is no certainty that this day corresponds to our seventh day, 
or Saturday, or that it corresponded to the seventh day of the 
ancient Jews. The command in the decalogue, also, requires 
us to labor six days, and to keep the seventh ; but, as it does not 
fix upon any precise day from which the reckoning shall com- 
mence, it is impossible to determine, merely from this command, 
what particular day is to be observed. 

The institution of the Sabbath obviously consists of two parts : 



THE SABBATH. 633 

first, the appointing of one clay in seven to be kept holy to the 
Lord ; and, secondly, the fixing of a particular day to be ob- 
served. It is the first of these points which is settled in the 
original institution and in the fourth commandment. The sec- 
ond has been settled, from time to time, by other intimations of 
the divine will. The Sabbath began on the seventh day from 
the commencement of the creation, or on the first day after the 
creation of man. In the time of Moses, it was observed on 
the seventh day of the Jewish week. Under the present dis- 
pensation, the Sabbath is fixed, as I shall attempt to show, on 
the first day of our Christian week. Still, although the day 
may have been changed, for aught we know, more than once, 
the original institution, as expressed in the second chapter of 
Genesis and in the fourth commandment, remains unchanged, 
and will remain to the end of the world. 

It may be objected, again, if the Sabbath is now fixed on the 
first day of our week', it ought to have been so fixed by some 
express command of Christ or his apostles. But such a com- 
mand we nowhere find. It is admitted that we have no express 
command on this subject; still, it is*believed that we have a 
clear intimation of the divine will, which has all the force and 
authority of a command. There were good reasons why our 
Saviour did not alter the time of observing the Sabbath, by an 
express command. He did not wish needlessly to disturb the 
feelings and prejudices of the Jews. It would have shocked 
them exceeding^, and caused a great and needless prejudice 
against the gospel, had they been told, in so many words, that 
their Sabbath was at an end, and that henceforth the institution 
was to be observed on the following day. This would have 
been putting new wine into old bottles ; and the bottles, doubt- 
less, would have burst, and the wine had been lost. But what 
could not well be effected by an express command was easily 
accomplished in a more silent and prudent way. The change 
was brought about gradually, — by usage and example, rather 
than by precept, — and when it came to be universal, the minds 
of all were prepared to receive it. It was thus that the neces- 
sary changes were accomplished, in regard to circumcision, the* 
passover, and the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law. 



634 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

These were not abolished by any express precept, but passed 
into a gradual disuse, as light was imparted to the minds of the 
people, and they were prepared to acquiesce. 

Having thus freed the subject from some of the objections 
which embarrass it, we proceed to exhibit direct proof that the 
Sabbath is now to be observed on the first day of the week. 
And, — 

1. It was on this day that our Saviour finished the painful, 
humiliating part of the work of our redemption. On this day 
he burst the bars of death, and rose triumphant from the dead. 
The Sabbath was originally instituted on the finishing of the 
work of creation, and with a view to commemorate its glories. 
But the work of redemption is a much greater and more glorious 
work than that of creation. We might anticipate, therefore, 
from what was done at the close of creation, that the resurrec- 
tion of Christ would be celebrated with at least equal honors. 
We might expect, a priori, that the day for commemorating 
creative power and goodness would give place to one for com- 
memorating redeeming love. Accordingly we find, — 

2. That the apostles and primitive Christians uniformly as- 
sembled on the first day of the week for solemn religious pur- 
poses, and thus observed it as a Sabbath. On the first day of 
the week, the same in which he rose from the dead, Christ met 
his disciples assembled for religious purposes (Luke xxiv. 36). 
On the first day of the following week ho met them again, as- 
sembled as before (John xx. 26). The day of Pentecost was 
always on the - first day of the week (see Lev. xxiii. 15, 16) ; 
but oh this day we find the disciples assembled " with one accord 
in one place" (Acts ii. 1). The first day of the week was the 
season, in the times of the apostles, when the word of God was 
preached, the Lord's Supper administered, and when charitable 
contributions were made for the poor. " Upon the first day of 
the week, when the disciples," at Troas, "came together to 
break bread, Paul preached unto them" (Acts xx. 7). "Upon 
the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in 
store, as God hath prospered him" (1 Cor. xvi. 2). These 
instances are sufficient to show what was the practice of the 



THE SABBATH. 635 

apostles in regard to this matter. And as they were guided by 
a divine inspiration, their practice is decisive. 

3. The first day of the week was, in the age of the apostles, 
denominated the Lord's day. " I was in the Spirit on the Lord's 
day" (Rev. i. 10). The phraseology here imports that this 
was, at that time, the common mode of designating one of tlje 
days of the week ; and we know, from other sources, that this 
was the first day. The first day of the week then was, by the 
apostles and primitive Christians, familiarly called the Lord's 
clay, — a clay consecrated and devoted to the service of the 
Lord. It was the Sabbath of the early followers of Christ. 

4. The whole church, in the ages immediately succeeding the 
apostles, and (with few exceptions) in all ages since, has been 
united in observing the first day of the week as a holy day. 
Ignatius, a companion of the apostles, says : "Let us no longer 
observe Sabbaths " (meaning Jewish Sabbaths) , " but keep the 
Lord's day, on which our Life arose." In the epistle ascribed 
to Barnabas it is said : " We observe with gladness the eighth 
day, on which Jesus rose from the dead." * Justin Martyr says : 
"On the day called Sunday, there is an assembly of all who 
live in the city or country, and the memoirs of the apostles, 
and the writings of the prophets are read." One of the reasons 
which he assigns for the observance is, that "this was the clay 
on which Christ rose from the dead." Irenseus says : " On the 
Lord's day, every one of us keeps the Sabbath, meditating on 
the law, and rejoicing in the works of God." The Council of 
Laoclicea, convened A. D. 360, decreed that " Christians ought 
not to Judaize, or to rest on the seventh day, but preferring the 
Lord's clay, they ought to rest as Christians." 

These instances show us clearly what was the practice of 
Christians in the ages immediately succeeding the apostles ; 
and, with few exceptions, such has been 'their practice in all 
periods since. We have, therefore, the sentiment of the whole 
Christian church on this subject, all declaring, as with one 
voice, that the Sabbath of the gospel is to be kept on that holy 
day on which the Saviour rose from the dead. 

5. Under the gospel dispensation, God has owned and blessed 
the first clay of the week as the Sabbath of his appointment. 



636 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

In the original institution of the Sabbath, God not only sancti- 
fied the appointed day, but blessed it. And in the fourth com- 
mandment it is said : "The Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and 
hallowed it." Accordingly we find, all along under the former 
dispensation, that blessings followed a faithful observance of 
the Sabbath, and curses came upon those who violated it. And 
if the Sabbath is still in existence, we may expect that God will 
own and bless it still. And he will bless, not a device of man, 
but the Sabbath of his own appointment. I ask, then, has not 
God blessed the Christian Sabbath, and thus set upon it the seal 
of his approbation ? He blessed it by repeated appearances of 
the risen Saviour to his disciples on this day. He blessed it 
gloriously on the season of Pentecost. He blessed it by splen- 
did and wonderful revelations, on this day, to the beloved dis- 
ciple on the isle of Patnios. He has blessed it peculiarly and 
gloriously from that day to the present. On this holy day 
Christians have met their heavenly Father in their closets, and 
enjoyed, on their knees, the most precious manifestations of his 
love. On this day they have met him in their families ; and, 
while engaged in the duties of private instruction and devotion, 
have found that his "favor was life, and his loving-kindness 
better than life." On this day they have met him in the sanc- 
tuary ; and, while engaged in public worship, and in attending 
upon his word and ordinances, the heavens have been bowed, 
the Holy Spirit has come down, the hearts of Christians have 
been quickened and comforted, the hearts of sinners have been 
melted and broken, the church has been purified and increased, 
and the name of the God of Israel has been glorified. It can- 
not be doubted, surely, that God has owned and blessed the 
first day of the week, under the gospel, as the weekly Sabbath. 
By the bestowment of his promised blessing, he has set it apart 
and sealed it as the appointed day of holy rest. 

Perhaps it will be said that he would have blessed the seventh 
day as much, if Christians had observed it with the same strict- 
ness. But facts do not justify this assumption. There were 
those in the primitive church, as the Nazarenes and Ebionites, 
who persisted in observing the seventh day, and would not give 
it up ; but the blessing of God did not follow them, and they 



THE SABBATH. 637 

soon came to nothing. So there are sects of Christians now, 
who insist on observing the seventh day ; but they are few in 
number, and are always likely to be. The blessing of Gocl has 
not rested upon them as upon other Christians, and their influ- 
ence for good in the world has been very small. On the whole, 
we have abundant reason to be satisfied that, in setting apart 
the first day of the week as the Sabbath, we have the approba- 
tion of Heaven. This is emphatically the clay which God has 
blessed. 

In closing this discussion, it would be pertinent to show how 
and why the Sabbath is to be observed ; but these points must 
be disposed of in the briefest manner possible. With respect 
to the manner in which the Sabbath is to be observed, I 
remark, — 

1. We are to abstain from everything, on this day, which 
would be sinful on other days. What would be wrong and 
wicked at other times, surely cannot be right on the Sabbath. 

2. We are to abstain, so far as possible, on the Sabbath, 
from all worldly thoughts and affections, and from worldly, 
secular reading and conversation. 

3. We are to abstain ourselves, and restrain those under our 
care, from labor of every kind on the Sabbath. "In it thou 
shalt not do any work." To this prohibition there are but two 
exceptions. First, necessary works, of mercy may be done on 
the Sabbath; such as preparing our food, taking care of chil- 
dren and domestic animals, providing for the sick, relieving 
the suffering and destitute, etc. And, secondly, such labor 
and travel may be lawfully performed as are necessarily con- 
nected with the public worship of God. "Have ye not read in 
the law how that, on the Sabbath days, the priests in the tem- 
ple profane the Sabbath," — by slaying and offering the sacri- 
fices, and conducting the services of religious worship, — "and 
are blameless?" (Matt. xii. 5.) 

4. A proper observance of the Sabbath involves a stated and 
faithful attendance upon the duties of public worship. "For- 
sake not the assembling of yourselves together" (Heb. x. 25). 

5. It is also necessary to a proper observance of the Sab- 
bath, that we engage, diligently and heartily, in all the private 



638 . CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

duties of religion and devotion. Our day of holy rest is not 
to be one of sloth and indolence. 

Among the reasons for a faithful observance of the Sabbath, 
are the following : — 

1. The express command and institution of God. 

2. The example of holy beings. The first Sabbath was kept 
by the Omnipotent Creator and his holy angels. w The morn- 
ing stars," on that day, "sang together, and all the sons of 
God shouted for joy." Our blessed Saviour and his apostles, 
and all holy men before and since the coming of Christ, have 
been faithful observers of the Sabbath. 

3. The Sabbath is a clay on which by far the greatest events 
which ever occurred in the history of our world are commemo- 
rated. The creation of the world, and its redemption ! What 
events have ever transpired beneath the sun to be compared 
with these? What events so worthy of being appropriately 
commemorated ? 

4. A proper observance of the .Sabbath is followed by the 
most important benefits, — to individuals, to families, to society 
in general, and to the world; benefits not only spiritual, but 
temporal, — relating not only to this world, but that which is 
to come. 

5. I urge but another reason for a strict observance of the 
Sabbath, which is, that it is now so widely desecrated and pro- 
faned. Those who have not reflected on the subject can hardly 
realize to how great an extent the Sabbath is profaned, and 
how few there are in this wide world who endeavor to keep it 
according to the commandment. If we look into heathen and 
Mahometan countries, of course, we shall find no Sabbath 
there ; unless it be in t here and there a place which has been 
visited by missionaries. If we look into Koman Catholic coun- 
tries, the state of things is little if at all better. And even 
among Protestants, especially in continental Europe, the holy 
Sabbath is awfully desecrated. Many deny altogether, and, in 
words, its divine authority, and others practically do the same. 
And in countries where there is a professed regard for the Sab- 
bath, the regard, in too many instances, is little more than pro- 
fession. It does not seem to be felt. It is scarcely exhibited. 



THE SABBATH. 639 

Now these facts furnish no reason why we should give up the 
Sabbath, but a reason rather why we sjiould hold on upon it 
with a firmer grasp. It is a precious institution, — a divine 
institution. It stands connected with the best interests of 
individuals and families, of the church and the world; and, if 
others are disposed to abandon it, we must hold it the harder. 
If others neglect and profane it, let us observe it with a stricter 
fidelity. By example, and precept, and every kind of personal 
influence, let us endeavor to restore it to its rightful position, 
and commend it to the observance of all around us. 






640 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUEE LIX. 

THE CHURCH. 

The word £xxtoj<n«, church, is used in several senses in the 
New Testament. It is used to denote a popular* assembly. 
"If ye inquire anything concerning other matters, it shall be 
determined in a lawful tmdyaria assembly" (Acts xix. 32, 39). 
This word is used in reference to the congregation of Israel, 
in the wilderness. "This is he that was in the kHxlyana, church 
in the wilderness " (Acts vii. 38). It is more commonly used, 
however, in one of the three following senses, — 

1. To denote the real, invisible church of God, comprising 
the whole body of true believers, whether on earth, or in 
heaven. (See Heb. xii. 23.) 

2. To denote particular visible churches, or those bodies of 
professed believers, who were accustomed to meet for public 
worship in one place ; as the church at Jerusalem, the church 
at Antioch, the church at Rome, etc. This is by far the more 
common use of the word in the New Testament. 

3. The word is also used, in a few instances, to denote the 
general, visible church, considered as embodying all the par- 
ticular visible churches. (See Rom. xvi. 23 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; 
Phil. iii. 6.) 

God began to have a real church on earth as soon as there 
began to be truly pious persons ; and he began to have a visi- 
ble church as soon as these pious persons became in any way 
embodied, so as to render their piety, — their covenant relation 
to God, — visible. There was a church, and probably a visible 
church, before the flood. There were "the sons of God," in 
distinction from the "daughters of men." There were those 
who "called on the name of the Lord," in distinction from 
those who forgot and forsook him (Gen. iv. 26; vi. 2). 



THE CHURCH. 641 

The form of government before the flood, and for centuries 
afterwards, both ecclesiastical and civil, was patriarchal. The 
head of a family, the ancestor of a tribe, was not only the civil 
ruler of those descended from him, or connected with him, but 
he was their priest. His household and dependents were his 
church, over whom he presided, and for whom, at stated times, 
he offered sacrifice. We have examples of this form of govern- 
ment in Noah, in Abraham, in Melchizedek, and Job. The 
visible church, at this period, had 'the weekly Sabbath and 
bloody sacrifices. Perhaps they had other rites, the knowledge 
of which has not come down to us. They had also frequent 
revelations from God. 

The church, which was still patriarchal, received a written 
covenant, and at least one new and very significant rite, — the 
rite of circumcision, — in the time of Abraham. The covenant 
with Abraham was properly a church covenant ; and circum- 
cision is spoken of in the Scriptures as the visible "token of 
this covenant," — "the seal of the righteousness of faith" (Gen. 
xvii. 11; Rom. iv. 11). By the transaction here referred to, 
the posterity of Abraham, or those of them who adhered to the 
covenant, were constituted a visible church, and the only church 
which, at that period, and for a long time afterwards, existed 
in the world. Accordingly, from this period, God begins to 
speak of himself as the God of Abraham-, and Isaac, and Israel, 
and of the children of Israel as, in a peculiar, covenant sense, 
his people. (See Ex. iii. 6, 7.) 

The form of the church underwent another change in the time 
of Moses. Xew rites and ordinances were appointed, — partly 
commemorative and political, but chiefly of a typical character. 
The government of the church was also changed. From being 
^patriarchal, it became theocratical and national. The children 
of Israel were no longer a clan, a tribe, but took rank among 
the surrounding nations. The design of the Mosaic institutions 
was not, however (as some may have supposed), to separate a 
people unto the Lord, which' before had no covenant relation to 
him; but rather "to establish the children of Israel to be his 
people, as he had sworn unto their fathers, to Abraham, to 
Isaac, and to Jacob" (Deut. xxix. 13). 

81 



642 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

This church of Israel was that which existed all along under 
the former dispensation. It was the Zion of the Old Testa- 
ment, — often chastised for its declensions, but never utterly 
forsaken, — and to which the promises of future enlargement 
were given. 

From this ancient visible church, the great body of the Jews 
were at length broken off, for their unbelief and rejection of the 
Messiah, and the converted Gentiles were graffed into the same 
stock (Kom. xi. 17). The general visible church, under the 
gospel, is but a continuation and enlargement of the church of 
Israel. Christ "thoroughly purged the floor" of his church, but 
did not destroy it (Matt. iii. 12). He represents the converted 
Gentiles as sitting down in the same kingdom with Abraham, 
and Isaac, and Jacob ; while the children of the kingdom, the 
unbelieving Jews, are cast out (Matt. viii. 11, 12). 1 

After the death of Christ, however, the church experienced 
some important changes, adapting it to the new circumstances 
in which it was to be placed. It lost altogether its national, 
political character, and became more purely a spiritual body. 
The church general was henceforth to be composed of various 
particular or congregational churches, 2 existing in different 
nations and in different parts of the earth. Its visible rite 
were also changed. Those which were of a typical character, 
and had been fulfilled in the death of Christ, were removed ; 
while others, more appropriate and significant, were appointed 
to take their place. 

That we have a warrant in Scripture for the formation of par- 
ticular or congregational churches there can be no doubt. Such 
were the churches everywhere established by the apostles and 
their assistant missionaries, and which were the principal objects 
of their watch and care. 

It is not certain that these churches were, in all cases, 
formed after precisely the same model, or that we have any 
exact pattern, laid down in Scripture, according to which they 
should be formed. Some general outlines arc clearly drawn for 
us, and these, so far as they can be discovered, should be strictly 

i See also Rom. xi. 17-23 ; Eph. ii. 12, 19, 20 ; Rev. xii. 14. 

2 Using the word congregational in a general, and not a sectarian sense. 



THE CHURCH. 643 

regarded ; but in addition to these, God has wisely left many 
things, to be judged of and regulated according to circum- 
stances. For example, the Scriptures direct that ministers of 
the gospel shall be supported ; but they do no.t fix the amount 
of their salaries, or define the mode in which their salaries 
shall be raised. The Scriptures enjoin the duty of public 
worship ; but they do not direct Christians where they shall 
meet, or at what hour of the day, or in what shape or form 
they shall build their temples. We shall search the Scriptures 
in vain for any inspired precept requiring or forbidding church 
organs, or church bells, or defining particularly the length, or 
the precise order, of the services of the sanctuary. We have 
the general injunction : "Let all things be done decently and in 
order ; " but in what particular order many things are to be 
done is wisely left to the judgment of Christians. 

The apostolic churches were all of them voluntary associa- 
tions. The apostles had no compulsory power to bring men 
into the churches, nor did they desire any. All who joined 
themselves to any of the churches, did it freely, and of their 
own accord. 

But although every church of Christ is, and of right ought to 
be, a voluntary association, still, every voluntary association is 
not a church. The peculiar characteristics of those early 
Christian associations, which went to constitute them churches, 
were the following : — 

1. All the members were required to profess faith in Christ, 
and to give credible evidence of piety. It was those who were 
"pricked in the heart," repented, and "gladly received the 
word," who were admitted to the church, on the day of Pente- 
cost (Acts ii. 41). It was not until the Samaritans "believed 
Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of Christ, 
that they were admitted to baptism and the church (Acts viii. 
12). The Holy Ghost fell on the family of Cornelius, and 
satisfied Peter as to their piety, before he would admit them 
to the church, and administer to them the ordinances of the 
gospel (Acts x. 44-48). Ananias objected to baptizing Saul of 
Tarsus, until a voice from heaven assured him of the piety of 
this recent persecutor. "He is a chosen vessel unto me, to 



644 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children 
of Israel" (Acts ix. 15). We here see what were the terms of 
admission to the apostolic churches, and what ought to be, and 
must be, the terms of admission to all the visible churches of 
Christ. A visible church is that which is visibly, or which 
appears to be, a branch of the real church. Consequently, a 
member of the visible church should be one who is visibly, or 
appears to be, a real disciple and follower of the Saviour. To 
say that a person can be a consistent member of the visible 
church, and not appear to be a member of the real church, is a 
contradiction in terms. 

2. Those voluntary associations formed by the apostles, and 
by them denominated churches, not only consisted of professed 
believers in Christ, but they were formed on a peculiar basis ; 
viz., that of the Holy Scriptures. In forming other voluntary 
associations, the members are guided by the particular object 
which they have in view ; and they so form and adjust their 
constitution and laws, as will best tend to promote this object. 
But in establishing churches, all who would follow in the steps 
of the apostles must build entirely on the platform of the 
Scriptures. Their constitution and laws must conform to the 
Scriptures. All who become connected with the churches must 
be required to take the Scriptures as their rule and law. They 
must profess to believe whatever the Scriptures plainly teach, 
and promise to obey, so far as they are able, all that the 
Scriptures enjoin. 

3. The object for which churches are formed and sustained is 
altogether of a peculiar character. It is not to promote any 
merely moral or secular end, but a spiritual end. The object 
of church organization is to maintain the worship and ordi- 
nances of the gospel; to promote by all proper methods, the 
edification of members ; and to labor more effectively than 
would otherwise be possible, for the advancement of Christ's 
kingdom, and the salvation of souls. A worthy and important 
object truly ! An object, in reference to which the church is 
gloriously distinguished from all other associations existing 
among men ! 

It has been made a question whether particular churches 



THE CHURCH. 645 

should have written creeds and covenants. That every church 
mast have a covenant, written or unwritten, is very obvious. 
Otherwise the members would have no bond of union. There 
would be no mutual understanding or agreement between them. 
And if there must be a compact or covenant, expediency would 
suggest that it should be a written one, which could not be per- 
verted or forgotton, and to which all the members might be 
permitted to appeal. 

And the conclusion is much the same in regard to a written 
creed. It is certainly desirable that those who are to unite, ha- 
bitually, in the most solemn acts of worship, should be agreed in 
the essential articles of their faith. And as every Christian, who 
believes anything, has a creed, so every society of Christians, 
which holds any articles of faith in common, has a common 
creed. The only question then is (and this can hardly be made 
a question) whether the creed shall be matter of public record, 
to which all concerned may have free access, and liberty of 
appeal, or whether it shall be left to uncertain tradition and for- 
getf illness. 

Whether written creeds were in use in the age of the apostles, 
we are not informed. We know that they were common soon 
after the apostles ; for several of them are still extant. Thus 
there is the apostles' creed, — a very ancient document, though 
not written by the apostles themselves. Besides this, we have 
the creed of Irenaeus, the creed of Origen, the creed of Tertul- 
lian, the creeds of •Gregory Thauraaturgus, and of Lucian the 
martyr: also the creeds of the churches at Jerusalem, at Alex- 
andria, and at Antioch. 1 

A written creed is not to be substituted in place of Scripture, 
but should be regarded as a concise expression (adopted for the 
sake of convenience) of what is deemed to be the sense of 
Scripture. It is not itself the standard of faith, but a tran- 
script, an epitome, of that infallible standard which God has 
given us in his word, and on which, as before remarked, the 
church must rest. 

No church has a right to impose its creed upon others, but 
merely to propose it for consideration ; leaving those to whom 

1 See Bingham's Orig. Ecc. book 3, chap. 2. 



646 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

it is submitted at full liberty, either to accept it, and walk with 
that particular church, or to reject it, and walk somewhere else. 
In this view, I see no valid objection to written creeds and cov- 
enants, while the benefits of them are numerous and obvious. 

Particular churches are independent of each other, in that 
each is a body by itself, as well as a member of the general 
body; and no one church, or collection of churches, has a right 
to exercise jurisdiction or authority over another church. In 
point of authority, the churches are equal and independent. 
No one is amenable to the bar of another. Each has a right to 
manage its own proper concerns, subject only to the law of 
Christ. 

Still, churches should have communion and fellowship one 
with another in all suitable ways. They should watch over one 
another in love ; pray for each other ; receive each other's mem- 
bers and ministers ; and be ready, on all occasions, to afford 
mutual assistance, and to give and receive advice. 

Particular churches are independent of each other, in much 
the same sense that individual persons are independent. I have 
no right to exercise authority over my neighbor, nor he over 
me. I manage my own proper concerns in my own way, and 
so does he. Still, we maintain a mutual, friendly intercourse, 
and perform, in respect to each other, all the offices of neigh- 
borhood and kindness. 

The independence of the particular church, in the sense here 
explained, is the peculiar characteristic trait of congregational- 
ism. In the Presbyterian, Episcopal, and Methodist churches 
this independence is taken away. The particular churches are 
subject to a jurisdiction beyond themselves. In the Presby- 
terian connection, for example, the Presbytery can correct the 
decisions of a church ; and the Synod can annul the decisions 
of the Presbytery ; and the General Assembly can annul the 
decisions of all. But not so in the Conoreofational churches. 
Under Christ, all power is here vested in the church. Councils 
may be constituted, and may give advice; but this advice may 
be accepted or rejected. Councils can decide nothing for a 
church, unless where, by a previous act of the church, they are 
constituted a board of reference for the purpose. 



THE CHURCH. 647 

It has become an established usage in our churches, that in 
case a member is aggrieved by the action of a church, he has 
the right of appeal to a mutual council ; or if a mutual couucil 
be refused, an appeal may be had to an ex parte council ; but 
neither of these councils can force their decisions on the church. 
They can only give counsel ; and this counsel may be accepted 
or rejected. To be sure, if counsel is rejected, there may fol- 
low a breach of fellowship between the churches giving it and. 
the church rejecting it ; but each and every church still retains 
its independency, and is amenable only to its Divine Shepherd 
and Head. 

That the churches were independent bodies for more than a 
hundred years after the death of Christ, we have the most in- 
contestable proof. On this point, Waddington, an Episcopa- 
lian, says : " On the death of a President, or Bishop, or Pastor, 
the choice of a successor devolved on the members of the soci- 
ety. In this election, the people had an equal share ; and it is 
clear that their right in this matter was not barely testimonial, 
but judicial and elective. This appointment was final, requiring 
no confirmation from any civil power, or any superior prelate ; 
and thus, in the management of its internal affairs, every church 
was essentially independent of every other. The churches thus 
constituted and regulated formed a sort of federative body of 
independent religious communities, dispersed through the 
greater part of the Roman empire, in continual communication 
and in constant harmony with each other." 1 

Mosheim, a Lutheran, speaking of the churches in the first 
century, say^s : "All the churches, in those primitive times, 
were independent bodies, or none of them subject to the juris- 
diction of any other. For though the churches which were 
founded by the apostles frequently had the honor shown them 
to be consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no 
judicial authority, no control, no power of giving laws. On 
the contrary, it is clear as the noonday, that all Christian 
churches had equal rights, and were, in all respects, on a foot- 
ing of equality." 

Speaking of the second century, Mosheim adds : "The form 

» Ecc. Hist., p. 43. 



648 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

of church government, which began to exist in the preceding 
century, was in this more industriously established and con- 
firmed. One President or Bishop presided over each church, 
who was created by the common suffrages of the whole people. 
During a great part of this century, all the churches continued 
to be, as at first, independent of each other, and were connected 
by no consociations or confederations. Each church was a kind 
of little independent republic, governed by its own laws, which 
were enacted, or at least sanctioned, by the people." 1 

Archbishop Whately says : " It seems plainly to have been 
the practice of the apostles to appoint over each separate church 
a single individual, as chief governor, angel, bishop, or over- 
seer ; and each church, though connected with the rest by ties 
of faith, hope, and charity, seems to have been perfectly inde- 
pendent, so far as regards any power or control. The plan of 
the apostles seems to have been to establish a great number of 
distinct, independent communities, each governed by its own 
bishop, conferring occasionally with the brethren of other 
churches, but owing no submission to the rulers of any other 
church, or to any central common authority except the 
apostles." 2 

The testimony of Neander, Gieseler, and other approved his- 
torians, as to the ecclesiastical polity of the primitive Christian 
age, is altogether coincident with that above given. 

It appears, from .these testimonies, that the churches, in the 
age of the apostles, and for many years afterwards, were sub- 
stantially Congregational. They were independent bodies. 
They must have been so, since, as Mosheim says, there were 
" no consociations or confederations " of any kind among them. 
It was the rise of Synods, which commenced in the latter half 
of the second century, which destroyed the original independ- 
ence of the churches. If these Synods could have come to- 
gether only for mutual consultation and edification, there would 
have been no objection. But they soon began to make laws for 
the churches, and to exercise authority over them. They be- 
came legislative and judicial tribunals, and the independence of 
the churches was taken away. 

1 Murdock's Mosheim, vol. L, pp. 86, 142. 

2 Essays on the Kingdom of Christ. 



THE CHURCH. 649 

It appears, from this account of the matter, that the Congre- 
gational and Baptist churches of modern times are not justly 
chargeable with innovation in establishing the principle of 
church independency. They are merely returning to the usages 
of the apostles and their immediate successors. They are 
laboring to restore a principle which ought never to have been 
relinquished. 

As to the pow r ers and rights of the primitive churches, only a 
few words heed be said. They had the right of admitting and 
excluding members. "When a vicious person," says Neander, 
"is to be excluded from the church at Corinth, the apostle re- 
gards it as something which must proceed from the whole church 
(1 Cor. v. 4). And when this same person, being humbled, is 
to be forgiven and restored, his restoration is to be effected by 
the same body" (2 Cor. ii. 7). 

The first churches had the right of choosing their own officers ; 
and this right they exercised even in presence, of the apostles. 
Thus the church at Jerusalem chose their seven deacons ; and 
the churches of Macedonia chose delegates to travel with Paul 
and his company, and carry their contributions to Jerusalem 
(Acts vi. 5 ; 2 Cor. iii. 19). This right continued to be exer- 
cised a long time in the churches. It was one of the last which 
was subverted by the usurpations of Popery. 

The primitive churches had also the right of holding and 
managing their own property. It was to take charge of the 
property of the church, and see to its equitable distribution, 
that the order of deacons was first instituted (Acts vi. 3) . And 
the deacons of Congregational churches now are constituted a 
legal corporation for the same purpose. 

In short, every independent church, whether in the primitive 
age or in the present, may be said to have the right to dispose 
of its own proper internal concerns, subject only to the law of 
Christ. It has a right to do all that is necessary to be done, in 
order to preserve its own existence, and secure to itself the 
privileges and blessings of the gospel. 

I close with a few words as to the privileges of church mem- 
bers. They have the privilege of being in covenant with God 
and his people, and of looking up to him as their covenant 

82 



650 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

Father in Christ. They have the privilege of the watch and 
care, the prayers and counsels, of their brethren. They have 
the privilege of coming to the special ordinances of the gospel, 
and thereby sealing their engagement to be the Lord's. They 
have opportunities of instruction and improvement which they 
could not have out of the church, and are surrounded with mo- 
tives to strengthen and sustain them in the performance of 
duty, which they could not otherwise enjoy. Privileges such 
as these should not be slighted and trifled with by any of the 
hopeful children of God. Indeed, they cannot be trifled with, 
but with manifest guilt and detriment to the soul. 



THE OFFICERS OF A CHURCH. 651 



LECTUEE LX. 

THE OFFICERS OF A CHURCH. 

It is a matter of general acknowledgment that there are two 
distinct offices in the church of Christ; viz., those of pastors 
or presbyters, and of deacons. Episcopalians add a third and 
higher office, — that of bishops. It belongs to the bishops, 
they say, each in his own diocese, to consecrate churches, to 
confirm and exclude members, to ordain ministers, and in gen- 
eral to administer the government of the church. And all this 
is attempted to be proved from the Bible. Let us look at 
some of the principal arguments by which the advocates of the 
theory undertake to support it. 

1. An argument for the three orders of ministers has been 
drawn from the analogy of the Jewish priesthood. As there 
were among the Jews the high-priest, the priests, and the 
Levites ; so amoug Christians, there should be bishops, pres- 
byters, and deacons. 

To this we have two replies to offer. In the first place, the 
priesthood in Israel was not designed to prefigure the gospel 
ministry, but rather the priesthood of the Son of Gocl. The 
Jewish high-priest w r as a type of the great High-Priest of our 
profession ; and the bloody sacrifices which he offered all 
looked forward to the atoning sacrifice of Christ. There is, 
properly, no priest under the new dispensation but the Lord 
Jesus Christ. To call a gospel minister a priest is a gross 
perversion and abuse of the term. 

But, secondly,, if the analogy of the Jewish priesthood were 
admitted, it proves too much for the Protestant Episcopalian. 
It proves the necessity, not of a bench of bishops, but of one 
prince of bishops, a Pope, who should be as highly exalted 



652 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



above his brethren, as the high-priest in Israel was above the 
ordinary priesthood. 

2. It 'is urged in favor of the order of bishops, that express 
mention is made of them in the New Testament. That bishops 
are spoken of in the New Testament is true ; but it is certain, 
from a comparison of passages, that the terms bishop and pres- 
byter are used interchangeably, as referring to the same office, 
and the same persons. Paul addresses his Epistle to the Phil- 
lippians, "to the saints which are in Christ Jesus, with the 
bishops and deacons." And when giving directions to Timothy 
respecting the qualifications of church officers, he mentions 
none but bishops and deacons (1 Tim. iii. 1). It is clear, from 
these passages, that there were no standing officers in the apos- 
tolic churches except bishops and deacons ; and, consequently, 
that bishops and presbyters must be the same. And this con- 
clusion is confirmed by a reference to other passages. Titus 
was left in Crete that he might " ordain elders in every city ; " 
but in a folloAving verse these elders are denominated bishops 
(Tit. i. 5-7). So in his valedictory address to the Ephesian 
elders, Paul speaks of these elders as eniaxonovg, bishops (Acts 
xx. 28). The Apostle Peter also exhorts the elders to do the 
work of bishops, "not by constraint, but willingly" (1 Pet. 
v. 2). It is certain from these passages, that, in the language 
of the apostles, the terms elder and bishop denote the same 
office, and refer often to the same person. 

3. It is further urged, in proof of the three orders of min- 
isters, that these orders actually existed in the apostolic 
churches. These were the apostles, the presbyters, and dea- 
cons. With a view to perpetuate the higher order, the apos- 
tles ordained successors to themselves. Such were all the 
bishops in the primitive churches. And such, by an uninter- 
rupted succession, are the bishops of our own times. 

As this argument is the main pillar of Episcopacy, so far as 
it has any shadow of support from the Scriptures, it will be 
necessary to examine it at some length. In commencing the 
examination, let us endeavor to ascertain, so far as we may, the 
precise nature and character of the apostolical office. In doing 
this, we may consider the apostles in a twofold light ; first, as 



THE OFFICEKS OF A CHURCH. 653 

simple ministers of Christ; and, secondly, as ministers des- 
tined to a peculiar work, and clothed with peculiar authority 
and powers. 

In the first place, the apostles were simple ministers of Jesus 
Christ. They were commissioned as ministers; and the com- 
mission which Christ gave them is that under which all his min- 
isters have acted from that time to the present, and to which 
they continually appeal : " Go ye into all the world, and preach 
the gospel to every creature." "Go teach all nations, baptiz- 
ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost." And as the apostles were commissioned like 
other ministers, so they often speak of themselves, and of one 
another, as mere ministers of Christ: "Let a man so account 
of us, as the ministers of Christ" (1 Cor. iv. 1). "Who 
hath made us able ministers of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. iii. 6). 
They often speak of themselves, too, as in the rank of pres- 
byters or elders : " The elders among you I exhort, who am 
also an elder" (1 Pet. v. 1). "The elder unto the well- 
beloved Gaius" (3 John 1). "The elder unto the elect lady" 
(2 John 1). In the light here presented, — as simple ministers 
of Jesus Christ, — the apostles have left successors after them. 
In this view, all Christ's faithful ministers may be regarded as 
in the succession of the apostles. 

But the apostles were destined to a peculiar work, and were 
clothed with peculiar authority and powers ; and in all that was 
peculiar to them, and which went to raise them above other 
ministers, it will appear that they have left no successors. 
Let us look at some of these peculiarities of their position and 
office. 

(1.) The apostles received their commission directly from 
Christ, as no other ministers ever did. 

(2.) The apostles were eye and ear witnesses of the life, the 
teachings, the sufferings, and resurrection of Christ; and it 
was a part of their official work, to bear witness of these 
things. Thus when Matthias was chosen to be an apostle, it 
was said : " One must be ordained to be a witness with us of 
his resurrection" (Acts i. 22). Now, in this important part 
of their work, the apostles can have left no successors. No 



654 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



succeeding ministers were witnesses, as they were ; and, of 
course, none are in a situation to bear testimony. 

(3.) As the first missionaries of Christ, and founders of the 
churches, the apostles have left no successors. Their very 
position and work, in this respect, gave them a degree of 
authority and influence in the church, to which no succeeding 
ministers can make any pretensions. 

(4.) The apostles were inspired men, and, as such, were 
qualified to announce doctrines to the churches, and to enact 
laws, which should carry with them the authority of God. 
Here, again, they have left no successors. 

(5.) The apostles were endowed, beyond others, with the 
power of working miracles ; for they not only wrought mira- 
cles themselves, but could impart the gift to others, by the 
imposition of their hands (Acts viii. 15-20). Who has suc- 
ceeded to them in this respect ? 

(6.) Not only had the apostles authority in the churches, as 
inspired men, but they could enforce their authority by inflict- 
ing judgments on the disobedient. Thus Ananias and Sapphira 
were struck dead, at the word of Peter ; and Etymas the sor- 
cerer was smitten with blindness, at the word of Paul (Acts v. 
5 ; xiii. 11). To this fearful power with which the apostles 
w T ere armed, Paul repeatedly alludes in his epistles : "If I come 
again, I will not spare." " Shall I come unto you with d, rod," 
etc. (2 Cor. xiii. 2; 1 Cor. iv. 21). Here, again, the apostles 
are presented in a light in which they have had no successors. 

It follows, from what has been said, that while, in the mere 
office of gospel ministers, the apostles have left successors, — 
every accepted minister of Jesus being, in this view, in the 
succession of the apostles ; in all those things which went to 
distinguish them from other ministers, and confer on them a 
peculiarity and a superiority, they have left no successors. 
•From the nature of the case, they can have left none. And if 
any will pretend to be the successors of the apostles, in their 
high and peculiar character, — in that which went to distinguish 
them from ordinary ministers ; then let them prove their suc- 
cession by something more than mere words. Let them show 
to the world that they really are what the apostles once were. 



THE OFFICERS OF A CHURCH. 655 

Have they received their commission, as the apostles did, 
directly from Christ? Were they eye-witnesses of his life, 
death, and resurrection ? Have they a claim to authority and 
influence, as the first missionaries of Christ, and (under God) 
the founders of his church? Have they inspiration, and the 
gift of miracles, and the, ability to impart the gift? Are they 
armed, like the apostles, with the judgments of heaven, and 
empowered to inflict judgments on the disobedient? In other 
words, are they what the apostles were? Have they succeeded 
to all, or to aught, of that, which went to give the apostles 
their peculiarity and authority in the church of Christ? If not, 
then let them boast no more about being the successors of the 
apostles. They can be successors of the apostles in none but 
the ordinary sense, as being simple ministers of Jesus. 

If bishops, as a distinct and superior order of ministers, 
have succeeded to the apostles, then why, we ask, are they not 
called apostles? Why has the name of office been changed? 
These two names are not synonymous, nor were they ever so 
considered, in the church of Christ. An apostle is not a bishop, 
nor is a bishop an apostle. An apostle is a missionary, — a 
minister at large, — one who has, what Paul tells us he had, 
"the care of all the churches." A bishop has, or should 
have, a pastoral charge. He is the overseer of a particular 
flock. His attentions are confined to some particular field of 
labor. But to what particular fields of labor were the apostles 
confined ? To what part of the Christian world did not their 
influence and authority extend? 

It is evidence enough that bishops, in their alleged superior 
capacity, have not succeeded to the apostles, that they have 
not succeeded to the name of the apostles, nor to that which 
this sacred name imports. In short, they are not apostles, 
either as to the -name or the thing. 

4. It has been urged, in proof of a third order of ministers, 
that in his messages to the seven churches of Asia, our Saviour 
addresses an individual in each church, whom he calls its angel 
(Rev. chaps, ii., iii). But how do we know that this angel was 
a bishop? The words angel and bishop are not synoirymous, 
nor have we any authority in the primitive age for using them 



Qd6 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



interchangeably. The probability is, that the angels of the 
seven churches were their pastors, or some leading individuals 
among their pastors. In most of the large churches, in the time 
of the apostles, there seem to have been several presbyters or 
elders. Such were the elders of the church at Jerusalem ; and 
the elders of the church at Ephesus ; and the "prophets and 
teachers" at Antioch, whose names are given in Acts xiii. 1. 
(See Acts xv. 6; xx. 17.) When these elders met together, 
as they often would, for consulation or devotion, they would 
need some one to be their moderator, or presiding officer. Such 
an officer we know was common in the next century, and was 
called the ^roofo-™;, or president of the church. It is not un- 
likely that this custom had been introduced before the close of 
the first century ; and the presiding presbyter or elder may be 
denominated by our Saviour the angel of the church. Still, he 
was but a presbyter among his brethren, and not a minister of a 
higher order. This supposition is the more probable, since we 
are told that one of the presbyters of the Jewish synagogue — 
the one who officiated in offering the public prayers — was called 
"the angel of the congregation." 1 

5. It is further urged, in proof of the three orders of minis- 
ters in the church of Christ, that these orders prevailed in the 
ages immediately succeeding the apostles, and, with few excep- 
tions, have prevailed in all periods since. The proper answer 
to this argument is a denial of the assumption on which it is 
based. The three orders of ministers did not prevail in the 
ages immediately succeeding the apostles. We have no mention 
of bishops, as an order distinct from presbyters, in any writing 
of the first century, or even of the second century, until near 
the close, — if we except the Epistles of Ignatius ; and these 
have been so tampered with and corrupted, as to be no valid 
authority in the case. We speak advisedly on this subject, and 
challenge contradiction, if contradiction can be sustained. 2 

In the third and fourth centuries, when clerical usurpation 
had not only commenced, but had made alarming progress, 
bishops generally claimed to be a distinct and superior order of 

1 Sec Prideaux's Connection, Part i., Book 6, Sect. 4. 

2 See Chauncy, on Episcopacy, where this question is thoroughly investigated. 



THE OFFICERS OF A CHURCH. 65 7 

ministers. Still, they had not then the exclusive power of 
ordination, nor was it allowed by the more intelligent Christians, 
as Eusebius, Augustine, Jerome, and others, that the distinction 
between them and presbyters was of apostolic origin. Thus 
Jerome testifies that it had been the custom at Alexandria, for 
more than two hundred years after Christ, for presbyters to 
choose and to constitute their, bishops. 1 And Eusebius affirms 
that in his day evangelists sometimes "ordained pastors." 2 

The manner in which the distinction between bishop and 
presbyter came into the church is pretty fully explained by 
Jerome, in his commentary on Tit. i. 6 : "A presbyter is the 
same as a bishop ; and before there were, by the instigation of 
the devil, parties in religion, the churches were .governed by the 
joint councils of presbyters. But afterwards it was decreed, 
throughout the whole world, that one chosen from among the 
presbyters should be put over the rest, and that the whole care 
of the church should be committed to him." Jerome proceeds 
to support his opinion, as to the original equality of presbyters 
and bishops, by commenting on Phil. i. 1, and on the inter- 
view of Paul with the Ephesian elders, and then adds: "Our 
design in these remarks is to show, that, among the ancients, 
presbyter and bishop were the very same. But by degrees, that 
the plants of dissension might be plucked up, the whole concern 
was devolved upon an individual. As the presbyters, therefore, 
know that they are subjected, by the custom of the church, to 
him who is set over them, so let the bishops know that they are 
greater than presbyters more by custom than by any real ap- 
pointment of Christ." In his Epistles to Evangelus and Oce- 
anus, Jerome assumes and maintains the same positions as in 
the foregoing passage. 

Augustine, bishop of Hippo, held the same doctrine. Writing 
to Jerome, who was not a bishop, he says : "Although, accord- 
ing to the names of honor which the usage of the church has now 
acquired, the office of bishop is greater than that of presbyter, 
yet in many things is Augustine inferior to Jerome." 

"It is remarkable," says Gieseler, 3 "how long the opinion of 

1 Epis. to Evagrius. 2 Ecc. Hist., lib. iii. cap. 37. 

3 Ecc. Hist., sect. 30, Note. 
83 



658 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



the original identity of bishops and presbyters was retained in 
the church. Bern aid, A. D. 1088, appeals, on this point, to the 
New Testament and to Jerome, and then proceeds: ' Since, 
therefore, presbyters and bishops may have been said anciently 
to have been the same, it is not to be doubted that they had the 
same power of binding and loosing, and everything else which 
is now peculiar to bishops.' Even Pope Urban II. , at the Coun- 
cil of Beneventum, A. D. 1091, speaking of the sacred orders 
of deacons and. presbyters, says : r Since these only the primitive 
church is said to have had, concerning these alone we have a 
command of the apostles."' 

Indeed, this was the generally received doctrine of the Catho- 
lic church, insisted on by both canonists and schoolmen, until 
past the middle of the sixteenth century, when the opposite 
opinion was affirmed by the Council of Trent. 

At the first dawning of the Reformation, the original parity 
of Christ's ministers was everywhere asserted. So taught Wick- 
liffe, in the fourteenth century. So taught Luther, and Melanc- 
thon, and Zwingle, and Calvin, and the German and the Swiss 
Eeformers. And what is more to the purpose, Cranmer, and 
Jewell, and Grindall, and Whitgift, and other founders and 
dignitaries of the present English Episcopal church, taught the 
same doctrine. Bishop Jewell says expressly, in his Remarks on 
Augustine : "The office of a bishop is above the office of a priest, 
not by the authority of Scripture, but after the names of honor 
which, through the custom of the church, have now obtained." 

Bishop Burnet says : "As for the .notion of the distinct offices 
of bishop and presbyter, I confess it is not so clear to me ; and 
therefore, since I look upon the sacramental actions as the high- 
est of sacred performances, I caunot but acknowledge. that those 
who are empowered for them," — as presbyters confessedly are, 
— "must be of the highest office in the church." 1 

Archbishop Usher, in his letter to Dr. Bernard, says : "I have 
ever declared my opinion to be, that bishop and presbyter differ 
in degree only, and not in order ; and that in places where 
bishops cannot be had, ordination by presbyters stands valid." 

Bishop Crofts says : "I hope my reader will see what weak 

i Vindification of the Church of Scotland, p. 336. 



THE OFFICEKS OF A CHURCH. 659 

proofs are brought for this distinction and superiority of order," 
between bishops and presbyters; "no Scripture, no primitive 
general council, no general consent of primitive doctors and 
fathers, no, not one primitive father of note, speaking partic- 
ularly, and home to our purpose." 1 

Selden, the best read in ecclesiastical antiquity of any man 
of his time, and whom Grotius styles "the glory of the English 
nation," turned the doctrine of the divine right of bishops into 
jest. 

Archbishop Bancroft is said to have been th.e first of the 
English Protestant clergy who insisted on the divine right of 
bishops ; and even he, it would seem, did not hold this opinion 
constantly; for when it was moved, A. D. 1610, that the Scot- 
tish bishops elect might first be ordained presbyters, Bancroft 
replied that "there was no need of it, since ordination by pres- 
byters was valid." 2 

Archbishop Laud, of persecuting memory, was a strenuous 
and consistent advocate of the divine right of bishops. He 
undertook the defence of this position while a member of the 
university, for which he received, it is said, a college censure. 
He persisted, however, in maintaining the doctrine, and had 
the happiness to see it prevail under his administration. It has 
been the belief of high-church Episcopalians, in England and 
America, from that period to the present. 

TTe have now examined, so far as time will permit, the 
claims of our Episcopal brethren to their three orders of min- 
isters ; and we see that their arguments amount to very little. 
They do not prove the point for which they are urged. We 
fall back, therefore, with entire confidence, upon the doctrine 
of the New Testament, and the fathers of the first and second 
centuries, that there are but two orders or classes of officers in 
the church of Christ ; the one having charge of its spiritual 
concerns, the other of its temporal concerns ; the one commonly 
denominated bishops or presbyters, the other, deacons. 

There are, indeed, circumstantial modifications of the general 
order of teaching officers in the church of Christ, and these are- 

1 Naked Troth, p. 47. 

2 See Neal's Hist, of Puritans, vol. ii. 413. 



660 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



indicated in the Scriptures by various names ; as apostle, evan- 
gelist, pastor, teacher, bishop, presbyter, etc., but still the 
order itself is one. In the language of the schools, these 
modifications constitute differences in degree, but not in order. 
In like manner the general office of the gospel ministry is mod- 
ified among ourselves. We have pastors, and missionaries, and 
theological professors, and evangelists ; and yet the order, the 
office, is one. I make this remark, that we may be the better 
understood when we say, that there are, by divine appointment, 
only two orders or classes of standing officers in the church of 
Christ. 

It is thought, by some, that the word presbyter or elder, as 
used in the Scriptures, designates two offices ; viz., that of the 
teaching elder or minister, and the ruling elder. Thus Paul 
says : " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy ' of 
double honor, especially they that labor in word and doctrine ; " 
importing that there was a class of ruling elders who did not 
labor in word and doctrine (1 Tim. v. 17). But I doubt 
whether this passage implies any official distinction among the 
elders. In primitive times, as before remarked, there were 
usually several elders in a church. Among these, some would 
be more learned and gifted, more competent teachers, and more 
acceptable preachers, than others. On these, of course, the 
greater part of the labor of preaching would devolve. They 
would preach more frequently than their less qualified brethren. 
They would labor more "in word and doctrine." And while 
Paul would have all the elders, who ruled well, counted worthy 
of high honor, he would have special respect paid to those who 
labored more effectively "in word and doctrine." 

We are confirmed in the belief that the apostle makes no 
allusion to a class of lay elders, in the passage under considera- 
tion, from the fact that no such officers are found in the church 
during the first four centuries after Christ. 

Our Episcopal brethren consider deacons as one of the three 
orders of ministers, and that preaching is a part of their official 
duty. But we have no evidence of this in the original appoint- 
ment of deacons, nor in the charge given to Timothy as to their 
qualifications (1 Tim. iil - 8-13). The first deacons were ap- 



THE OFFICERS OF A CHURCH. 661 

pointed, not to assist the apostles in preaching, but to relieve 
them of a burden of secular cares and duties, that so they might 
give themselves more entirely to the ministry of the word. 
(Acts vi. 1-4.) 

There can be no doubt that the primitive deacons would do 
all in their power (as every Christian should), by conversation 
and exhortation, to promote the spread of the gospel, and lead 
sinners to Christ. Thus Stephen was employed, when ar- 
raigned and brought before the Sanhedrim for trial. Neither 
can it be doubted, that those who "used the office of a deacon 
well " were often promoted to the higher office. Thus Philip 
the deacon is afterwards spoken of as " Philip the evangelist." 
(Acts xxi. 8.) The probability is that he was constituted an 
evangelist previous to his visit to Samaria, and to his being 
engaged in preaching and baptizing there (Acts viii. 5-12). 

Church officers should be officially qualified or constituted by 
ordination. This is according to the example of the apostles. 
It should be understood, however, that ordination, of itself, 
does not make a man an officer in a particular church. He 
must first be elected by the church, and must freely accept of 
the church's election. But ordination is a divinely authorized 
and prescribed form of investiture, of inauguration, to a par- 
ticular office. 

The first deacons were ordained. By the imposition of hands 
and prayer they were solemnly invested with the office of dea- 
con (Acts vi. 6). And it deserves consideration whether 
deacons, in our own time, should not be set apart to their office 
in the same way. 

Ministers of the gospel, too, should be ordained. . Until they 
are ordained, they are not properly invested with the office of 
a minister, and qualified to administer the sacraments of the 
church. 

Our Episcopal friends insist that bishops alone have the 
power of ordination ; but in proving, as above, that bishop and 
presbyter denote the same office, we invalidate altogether this 
high claim. We have proof in abundance, both from Scripture 
and antiquity, that the prerogative of ordination belongs to 
presbyters. The presbyters at Antioch ordained Paul and 



662 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Barnabas (Acts xiii. 3). Timothy was ordained by "the lay- 
ing on of the hands of the presbytery" (1 Tim. iv. 14). Tim- 
othy and Titus, who were evangelists, are spoken of as being 
vested with the power of ordination (1 Tim. v. 22 ; Tit. i. 5). 
The presbyters at Alexandria, as Jerome informs us, were in 
the habit of ordaining not only one another, but their bishop, 
and that, too, for more than two hundred years. 

Some have contended that churches have the right of ordain- 
ing their own ministers. And as an abstract right, to be exer- 
cised only in cases of extreme necessity, perhaps this may be 
admitted. Still, this is not the way in which church officers, as 
a general thing, should be ordained. In the New Testament, 
and in the early ages of the church, we find this work, invaria- 
bly, performed by ministers. Indeed, it is properly committed 
to ministers, and should not be undertaken by others, except in 
cases of such extreme necessity as knows no law. 

By the first settlers of New England lay ordinations were 
encouraged, and sometimes practised. But in this respect, our 
fathers verged, obviously, to the extreme of independency. 
And it is evidence of their wisdom, that though they retained 
the theory of lay ordination in their Platform, 1 they early ban- 
ished the practice of it from their churches. Probably not an 
instance of lay ordination has occurred among the Congrega- 
tionalists of New England during the last two hundred years. 



1 Cambridge Platform, chap. 9. 



CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 663 



LECTUKE LXI. 

CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 

The discipline of a church, in the larger sense of the term, 
includes all those principles and rules which are adopted, with 
a view to the purity, order, peace, and efficiency of its members. 
In a more restricted sense, church discipline has respect to that 
course of treatment which churches are called upon to pursue 
towards offending members ; including instruction, warning, 
admonition, reproof, excommunication, etc. 

The proper subjects of church discipline, then, in this sense 
of the terms, are offending members ; those who have entered 
into covenant with the church, have placed themselves under its 
watch and care, and are known to walk in a disorderly manner. 
With such persons, the church is bound to have recourse to 
discipline. It is bound to take measures with them for their 
reformation or exclusion. 

The power of discipline, at least in its ulterior stages, is 
lodged in the church. It is the duty of individual members to 
use the milder methods of warning aud reproof; but when these 
fail, it belongs to the church, as a body, to convict, admonish, 
and exclude the offender. 

This is the natural right of the churches. As it belongs to 
them to admit members, they ought to have the right, in case 
individuals become unworthy, to exclude them. And this right 
of the churches is expressly recognized in the New Testament. 
To the aggrieved brother Christ says : " Tell it to the church ; 
and if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an 
heathen man and a publican " ; — a form of expression which 
clearly implies that it belongs to the church to hear and judge 
of the offence, to admonish, and (if need be) to exclude the 
offender (Matt, xviii. 17). 



664 CHKISTIA]* THEOLOGY. 

Paul, writing to the Corinthian church, says : " Purge out the 
old leaven ; " and again : " Put away from among yourselves 
that wicked person" (1 Cor. v. 7, 13). He exhorts the Roman 
brethren to " mark those that cause divisions, and avoid them ; " 
and the Thessalonians, to "withdraw themselves from every 
brother that walketh disorderly" (Rom. xvi. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 
6). It is evident from these and similar passages, that the 
power of discipline is vested in the churches, and that on them 
rests the responsibility of maintaining it. 

It has been objected to the views here presented, that our 
Saviour addressed the seven churches of Asia through their 
respective angels or ministers ; and that these ministers were 
commended or reproved, according as they had been faithful or 
unfaithful in the work of discipline ; implying that this was a 
work devolving especially upon them. In reply, I admit, that 
the angels of these seven churches were probably their minis- 
ters ; but it is perfectly evident, from what our Saviour said to 
them, that his messages were designed, not for them as individ- 
uals, but for the churches over which they presided. The 
churches were addressed through their pastors. It was the 
churches which were commended or rebuked, according as they 
had been faithful , or the contrary. In some instances they are 
addressed in the plural number : " The devil shall cast some of 
you into prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribula- 
tion ten days ; " — a singular form of expression to be used in 
reference to an individual. 

The ends to be answered by church discipline are, first, the 
recovery of the offender, if this be possible. He has broken his 
covenant, has gone astray, and is in danger of perishing in his 
sins. His Christian brethren are bound to him by solemn 
covenant obligations ; they deeply feel for him, and are ready 
to do all in their power for his recovery. 

But whether they can recover the offender or not, they are 
bound to regard the second great end of discipline, which is the 
honor of religion, and the purity of the church. By the fall 
of a church member, religion is disgraced, and the church is 
injured ; and there is no way in which the evil can be removed, 
but by the recovery of the offender, or his exclusion. He must 



CPIURCH DISCIPLINE. 665 

either make confession of his sins, and return to his duty, or he 
must be separated from the communion of the church. To these 
two great ends of discipline, — the recovery of the offender, if 
it be possible, or his exclusion from the church, — all the steps 
in a process of discipline should be directed. 

It has been made a question, how far we are to regard the 
direction of Christ, in Matt, xviii. 15-17, as a rule of church 
discipline. I think it may be safely said, that the spirit of this 
rule should be regarded always ; and the letter of it, so far as 
circumstances will allow. Except, perhaps, in cases of notorious 
and flagrant crime, or where the offender is quite out of the 
reach of his brethren, there should always be, in the first instance, 
private admonition. Let some suitable person go to the offender, 
in a private and friendly manner, tell him of his fault, and 
urge him to repentance and reformation. Let him, if need be, 
repeat this labor of love. 

If the offence is known only to the laboring brother, and no 
sufficient proof of it can be adduced, this brother can deal with 
him only in a private way. He cannot with propriety or safety 
speak of it, or bring it before the church. If he cannot gain 
his brother by private admonition, he must leave him to the 
decisions of the judgment clay. Nor may he, on account of his 
brother's delinquency, absent himself from the communion of 
the church. To do this, would be to commit an offence against 
the whole church, and expose himself to needless censure. In- 
deed, I can think of no offence or grievance, on account of 
which a professing Christian would be justified in turning away 
from the communion of his church, so long as he believed it to 
be a church of Christ, and he considered it his duty to remain 
connected with it. 

But if the offence is not strictly private, — if it is susceptible 
of proof, — then, when the incipient steps have foiled of their 
object, the case must be brought before the church. A written 
complaint should be lodged with the pastor, or presiding officer, 
with a request that it be laid before the church. If the church 
vote to receive and act upon the complaint, — as, in all ordinary 
cases, the}' should do, — a day is set apart for trial, when the 
complainant is to establish his charges, b} r proof. If the church 

84 



666 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

vote that the charges, or any considerable portion of them, are 
sustained, the offender is suspended from communion, and a 
written admonition is sent to him. If he does not " hear the 
church" in this, a second admonition, is sometimes sent. (See 
Tit. iii. 10.) If this, too, be disregarded, he is now formally 
and solemnly excommunicated. 

If the offender is dissatisfied with the decision of the church, 
he has the right, according to our usages, of appeal to a mutual 
council ; and it is the duty of the church, in all ordinary cases, 
to unite with him in calling such a council, if he desires it. 
This council may be called merely to give advice ; or it may be 
constituted, by the parties, a board of reference, to review and 
decide the case for them. It will be guided, in this respect, 
by the previous action of the parties, as expressed in their letter 
missive. 

Should the request for a mutual council be rejected by the 
church, the dissatisfied individual may call an ex p arte council, 
to look into his case, and give advice. It is to be understood, 
however, that this council has no right to dictate to the church, 
or to impose its decision upon it. It can only express an 
opinion and give advice, leaving the church at liberty to act, in 
view of the advice given, according to its own sense of propriety 
and duty. The ex parte council cannot restore the excommuni- 
cated person to his former standing in the church from which 
he has been ejected ; although it may, in case he is thought to 
deserve it, afford him relief in some other way. 

The satisfaction to be required of offenders is evidence of re- 
pentance ; and this will be furnished by confession of sin, repar- 
ation (so far as possible) of injury, and reformation of life. 
While the offence is private, a confession may be private; but 
when the case has been brought before the church, or in any 
other way has become public, a public confession must be re- 
quired. Nothing short of this can wipe away the dishonor clone 
to religion, and remove scandal from the church. Every true, 
penitent will wish his confession to be as public as his offence. 
He Avill be satisfied with nothing less than this. Still, due care 
should be taken, that the feelings of penitents be not needlessly 
wounded in cases of this nature, and that feelings of unkindness 



CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 667 

and revenge, which, possibly, may be harbored against them, be 
not intentionally consulted and gratified. 

Excommunicated persons should be considered, not as re- 
leased from their covenant obligations, but rather as covenant- 
breakers. They should be regarded with feelings of sorrow 
and concern, and should be made the subjects of special prayer. 
Where any good is likely to result from such a course, they are 
to be avoided and shunned. They are to be denied the society 
and countenance of Christians, that they "may be ashamed." 
I see no good reason, however, for the scrupulousness which 
some have manifested, in refusing to eat with them, and in de- 
nying them the common courtesies of life. That eating with 
them, which is forbidden to Christians by the Apostle Paul, 
refers not, I think, to the common meal, but to the table of the 
Lord. "If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or 
covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an ex- 
tortioner," let such an one be put out of the church, as unworthy 
to sit with his brethren at the table of the Lord (1 Cor. v. 11). 

I hardly need say, that it is incumbent on the church, and on 
all its members, to seek the good of excommunicated persons, 
and to be ready at all times to accept their penitence, to rejoice 
in their reformation, and to welcome them back to the bosom 
of the church. 

In this short Lecture, I have only attempted to lay down 
some general principles to be our guide in the often difficult, 
and always painful, work of church discipline. In regard to 
particulars, much must be left to the discretion of pastors, and 
those who take a leading part in the work. 

In our larger churches, I have thought that the appointment 
of a standing committee, whose official duty it shall be to look 
into all cases of alleged offence, to adjust them privately, if 
possible, or, if not, to bring them to the notice of the church, 
might be a measure both of duty and of safety. It would 
secure that the work of discipline should be more promptly 
done, and better done, — done, too, with less danger to the 
peace and harmony of the church. 

I only add further, that this work of church discipline should 
be regarded, by all concerned, as a work of love. All who 



668 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

have had much experience in it know that it is sometimes re- 
garded differently. Those who undertake it are suspected and 
reproached., and the language of the Saviour on a very different 
subject is perversely applied to them : " Let him that is without 
sin among you cast the first stone." Now this, I hardly need 
say, is all wrong. There is no casting of stones in the case. 
Church discipline is, throughout, — and so it should be regarded 
by all concerned in it, — a work of love. In the spirit of love 
it should be undertaken, and pursued, and brought to its termi- 
nation, whatever that may be. The church is no place in which 
to seek or take revenge. And those who endeavor faithfully to 
maintain the discipline of the church should not be accused or 
suspected of seeking revenge. When I wander, it may be in- 
sensibly, from the path of duty, my Christian brother can afford 
me no so convincing evidence of his love, as in taking me kindly 
by the hand, aud endeavoring to lead me back. Such an one is 
trying, not to injure me, but, at a great expense of feeling on 
his part, is trying to save me. Surely his is, beyond almost 
any other, a work of love. Yet this is church discipline. 



THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS. 669 



LECTUEE LXIL 

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS. 

The word sacrament is not in the Bible. Hence, in entering 
upon a consideration of the subject before us, it is important 
that the proper meaning of this word should be ascertained, 
and that the manner of its introduction into the current phrase- 
ology of Christians should be pointed out. 

The word in question is from the Latin sacramentum, which, 
in classic use,. has two significations. First, it denotes the sum 
of money which each of the parties in a suit at law was required 
to lay down, at the commencement of the trial, and which, 
being forfeited by the party beaten, was devoted to public uses. 
Hence, it was called sacramentum, a sacred deposit. Between 
this and the Christian use of the term, I can discover no affinity. 

But, secondly, the word was used by the Romans to signify 
jusjurandum, an oath; and more especially an oath by which 
the Roman soldier bound himself to obey his commander in all 
things. In this sense, the word is used continually by Cicero, 
Caesar, Livy, and all the best Latin writers. And many have 
supposed that the Christian use of the term was strongly anal- 
ogous to this, and in fact borrowed from it; that in receiving 
the sacraments the Christian binds himself by oath to Christ, as 
the Roman soldier bound himself to obey his commander. But 
to this supposition we have two objections. In the first place, 
there is no evidence that the early Christians regarded them- 
selves as sworn into the service of Christ, and bound to him by 
the solemnity of an oath, or that they ever used the w r ord sacra- 
ment in such a sense. And, second^, this supposition is con- 
tradicted by another view of the case, which is altogether more 
probable. 



670 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

The peculiar, Christian sense of the word sacramentum was 
derived, not from either of its classical significations, but from 
the ancient Latin versions of the Bible. These versions be^an 
to be made very early ; some of them in the apostolic age, and 
others at a later period. And when we look into these versions 
Ave find* sacramentum used in altogether a peculiar sense. It 
denotes anything secret, recondite, incomprehensible, and is 
synonymous with the Greek, (ivaiijQiov , mystery. In the 
sense of these old Latin versions, anything which might prop- 
erly be called a mystery was a sacrament. Thus Nebuchadnez- 
zar's dream, which was hidden from himself, and which Daniel 
revealed, is in the Vulgate repeatedly called a sacrament or 
secret (Dan. ii. 19). In place of Paul's language, "Great is 
the mystery of godliness," we have, in this version, "Great is 
the sacrament of godliness" (1 Tim. iii. 16). Also in Eph. 
v. 32, where Paul says of marriage, "This is a great mystery; 
but I speak of Christ and the church," the Vulgate has it, 
"This is a great sacrament," etc. In the Revelation, too, "the 
mystery of the seven stars " is rendered " The sacrament of the 
seven stars" (Rev. i. 20). 

Why the early Latin translators of the Scriptures adopted 
this peculiar sense of the word sacrament, I pretend not to say. 
Of the fact that they did so, there can be no doubt. Now 
these Latin translations were the common Bibles of the first 
Latin fathers, as Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and others ; 
and these were the men who introduced the word sacrament 
into the phraseology of the church. Of course, they would use 
it in the sense in which they found it used in their Bibles. 
Accordingly we find Tertullian, when speaking of the doctrines 
of the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ, calling them alter- 
nately mysteries and sacraments. Indeed, he, and some of the 
other Latin fathers, use the word sacrament to denote the whole 
Christian doctrine ; just as Paul sometimes calls the doctrines 
of religion mysteries. "Let a man so account of us as the 
ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God" 
(lCor. iv. 1). 

The word sacrament is used by Tertullian, and by most of the 
Latin fathers, in reference to baptism and the Lord's supper, — 



THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS. G71 

sacramentum aquce et eucharislce. Nor is it difficult to see how 
these rites came to be denoted by this term, in accordance with 
the sense which the fathers gave to it. For in both these rites 
there is an outward sign and the thing signified. There is the 
form of the rite, which is obvious to the sense, and the spiritual 
import, which is conveyed under it. Of course there is that 
which, to the uninstructed, uninitiated, is concealed, secret, 
and which, in the current language of the times, would be called 
mystery, sacrament. Thus Augustine says : "They are called 
sacraments, because that in them one thing is seen, and another 
is understood." (Serm. 265.) 

But there is another reason why the word sacrament was 
emplo}^ed to denote baptism and the Lord's supper, which 
probably had more influence. The Pagan priests were ac- 
customed to celebrate the more sacred rites of their religion in 
secret, and to call them mysteries. In imitation of this practice, 
and with a view to make their religion more acceptable to 
Pagans, the Christian fathers early began to celebrate baptism 
and the Lord's supper in private. None were allowed to be 
present except the initiated, and the rites themselves were 
denominated the Christian mysteries or sacraments. 

The word sacrament has undergone some change of significa- 
tion since the times of the early Latin fathers. By all Christians, 
who use the word at all, it has come to.be appropriated to the 
outward rites and forms of religion. To be sure, all Christians 
do not use it in reference to the same rites ; but it is employed 
by all who use the word in any sense, to denote certain outward 
ritual observances. The question therefore arises, and it is an 
important one in this discussion, What is requisite to constitute 
a rite of our religion, — in the sense in which the word is now 
commonly used, — a sacrament? 

Without particularly noticing everything which might be 
brought forward, in answer to this inquiry, it will be sufficient 
for my present purpose to remark, — 

1. That in order to constitute a religious rite a sacrament, it 
must be one of divine institution. Neither the wisdom of man 
nor the traditions of the elders, nor any other mere human 
device, is sufficient to establish a Christian sacrament. To be 



672 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

entitled to this distinction, an observance or rite must be an 
ordinance of Christ. It must be of divine institution. 

2. A rite in order to be regarded as a sacrament of Christ, 
must be characterized by significance and appropriateness. It 
must not be an idle ceremony. It must have a meaning, — an 
important meaning ; and this meaning must be sufficiently 
obvious to be understood. Otherwise it would not be a sacra- 
ment, in the sense of the old Latin fathers, as before explained ; 
nor could it be regarded as an institution of Christ. Who could 
believe that Christ would appoint an ordinance in his church 
that was without meaning, or the meaning of which was so 
recondite, as to be calculated rather to puzzle and perplex his 
people, than to instruct and edify them. 

3. An outward observance in order to be regarded as a 
sacrament, must hold an intimate and vital connection with the 
church. It must be included in the covenant of the church. It 
must be a rite of the church, and belong to it. The Christian 
sacraments, as the phrase is now understood (whether the}* be 
few or many), are all of them church ordinances. They are 
visible tokens (as circumcision was) of the church covenant. 
They belong to those, and those only, who are embraced in 
the covenant, and hold some connection with the church. They 
go to give visibility to the church. No rite which is not thus 
vitally connected with the church can properly be regarded as 
a Christian sacrament. Again, — 

4. An outward rite, in order to be a sacrament of the church, 
must be one of universal and perpetual obligation. It must not 
be confined to the apostolic age, or to any other age. It must 
not be restricted to the Jews, or to any other people. Chris- 
tianity was designed to be the religion of the world. The 
Christian dispensation is not to give place to any other, but is 
to continue to the end of time. Hence, the sacraments of our 
religion, being once instituted, are to remain. They are not to 
be superseded, or pass away. They are to be observed when- 
ever and wherever the church of Christ is established. They 
are to prevail with the religion of Christ, all over the earth, and 
continue to the end of the world. 

Having mentioned the several marks by which the Christian 



THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS. 673 

sacraments are distinguished, it will not be difficult to decide as 
to the number of them, and which they are. 

All Christians, who observe any outward rites, are agreed in 
considering baptism and the Lord's supper as sacraments. 
Protestants regard these as the only sacraments ; while in the 
Church of Rome, five others are associated with them, malfmg 
seven in all ; viz., confirmation, ordination, auricular confession 
with absolution, extreme unction, and marriage. 

I may remark in passing, that there seems to have been no 
dispute in the church, as to the number of the sacraments, nor 
any attempt to define and settle the number, until after the 
twelfth century. The discussion of this matter commenced 
anion o- the schoolmen, and was settled, so far as the authority 
of one man could settle it, by Peter Lombard, in his four books 
of Sentences. The principal reason why he decided upon seven 
sacraments was, that seven is a sacred number; and of course, 
the sacraments must be presumed to be no more nor less than 
seven. In this decision, as in most other things, he was followed 
by the doctors of the Romish church ; but the sacraments were 
not authoritatively determined to be seven until the Council of 
Trent, in the sixteenth century. 

But let us try the five additional sacraments of the Romish 
church by the distinguishing marks that have been laid down, 
and see if they will bear the test. The first of these is confirma- 
tion. But this fails at the very threshold. There is no evidence 
that confirmation, as practised in the Romish and Episcopal 
churches, is of divine institution. The passages relied on in 
proof of this point have not the remotest allusion to the subject. 
The apostles laid their hands on the new converts, and imparted 
to them the Holy Ghost in his miraculous influences. In other 
words, they imparted — as they alone had power to do — mirac- 
ulous gifts (Acts viii. 17-19). But this was a different thing — 
most widely different — from confirmation as now practised. 

The second of the Romish sacraments to be examined is ordi- 
nation. This is, indeed, a rite of divine appointment ; a signifi- 
cant rite ; and one which is likelrto be perpetuated. But does 
it hold the required connection with the church? Is it included 
in the covenant of the church? Is it to be snven to all those 

85 



674 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

who come into the church ? Does it go to give form and visibility 
to the church? These questions must all be answered in the 
negative. Of course, ordination fails in one of the requisite 
characteristics of a sacrament. It is a divinely appointed mode 
of investing a man with office in the church of Christ, but has 
no claim to be regarded as a Christian sacrament. 

The third of the Eomish sacraments is auricular confession ; 
or penance, as it is sometimes called ; or absolution. This is 
destitute of each and all of the marks of a sacrament. But it is 
enough to say of it, that it has no foundation in the word of 
God. We are required to repent of our sins ; to confess them 
to one another, and to God ; and to seek forgiveness at his 
hands. But we are nowhere required to confess them to a 
priest, submit to the penance he enjoins, and receive his 
absolution. 

Another of the Romish sacraments is that of extreme unction. 
This is founded, professedly, on the following Scripture : " Is 
any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church ; 
and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name 
of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick " (James 
v. 14). Here is an authority, certainly, for an unction of the 
sick ; but not for what the Romanists call extreme unction. The 
unction of the apostles was designed for the recovery of the sick ; 
and, if accompanied with faith and prayer, had the promise of 
recovery. But the extreme unction of the Romanists is admin- 
istered in the last hours of life, and is intended, not so much for 
the recovery of those who receive it, as to prepare them for 
approaching death. It is obvious, too, as the unction of the 
apostle looked to the performance of a miracle, it must have 
been limited to the age of miracles, and could not have been 
designed to be perpetuated in the church. 

Still another of the Romish sacraments is marriage. This, 
we acknowledge, is of divine institution, and was designed to 
be perpetuated. Yet the rites attending it are nowhere pre- 
scribed, and it lacks entirely that connection with the , church 
which is necessary to constitute it a Christian sacrament. 

There is an injunction of Christ, which looks quite as much ■ 
like instituting a sacrament, as either of those which have been 



THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS. 675 

considered, and which some Christians have regarded in the 
light of- a sacrament, although the Romanists have passed it 
over. "If I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye 
also ought to wash one another's feet" (John xiii. 14). Here 
would seem to be a positive institution, and a very significant 
one. But then, like marriage, it does not hold the required 
connection w^ith the church ; and it is evident, since we do not 
find it generally and statedly practised in the apostolic churches, 
that it was not designed to be perpetuated. The spirit of the 
injunction, no doubt, was intended to be regarded. Christians 
are bound to practise a mutual condescension, and should be 
ready to perform for each other, when circumstances require it, 
the humblest offices of kindness ; but are not bound literally, 
sacramental ly, to wash one another's feet. 

We come back, then, from the foregoing examination, to bap- 
tism and the Lord's supper, as alone entitled to be denominated 
Christian sacraments. These have all the distinguishing marks 
of sacraments, as the word is now commonly understood. And 
as the Scriptures have nothing to say, in terms, about sacra- 
ments, it is only by their peculiar distinguishing marks that 
they can be known. Both baptism and the Lord's supper are 
of divine institution. We have the express words of their in- 
stitution in the Scriptures. Both of them, too, are highly and 
obviously significant. Both hold the required connection with 
the church ; so that they may strictly be denominated sacraments 
of the church. And both of them were designed to be perpet- 
uated. Of the Lord's supper it is more than intimated that it 
is to continue in the church till the second coming of Christ (1 
Cor. ii. 26) ; while the practice of the apostles, and of the 
church in all ages, proves that baptism with water is of perpet- 
ual obligation. 

Here, then, we have two sacraments of the church, and only 
two. And these are to be observed according to the original 
institution, divested of all that rubbish of ceremonies which 
superstition has, at some periods, thrown around them. 

Most of the important questions respecting baptism and the 
Lord's supper will be considered in the following Lectures. As 
to the efficacy of the sacraments, or the manner in which the 



676 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

benefits of them are received, there is some diversity of opinion 
among those calling themselves Christians. In the Church of 
Rome, two things are set forth as indispensable to the efficacy 
of the .sacraments : First, that the outward administration be 
rightly performed; and, secondly, that the intention of the of- 
ficiating priest be rightly directed. Faith, on the part of those 
receiving the sacraments, so far from being made a condition of 
the blessing, is expressly declared to be of no account. The 
following is from one of the Canons of the Council of Trent : "If 
any man shall say that grace is not conferred by the sacraments 
themselves, but that faith alone is sufficient to obtain the grace, 
let him be anathema." Thus, to use the words of another, "the 
sacraments are converted into a sort of magical charm, which 
works in some mysterious way, without the concurrence of the 
patient ; the exercise of the intellect and will, of the rational 
and moral powers within him, being entirely excluded." On 
this ground, the sacraments might be as efficacious to a person 
asleep, as to one awake ; to a man bereft of reason, as to one 
in the full exercise of reason ; to the ignorant savage, or the 
unrelenting malefactor, as to the most enlightened and devoted 
Christian. 

But not only must the outward ceremony be rightly per- 
formed, the intention of the priest must be rightly directed ; 
else there is no virtue in the sacrament. The very essence of 
the thing is wanting. This, obviously, must be a most perplex- 
ing condition to the Romanists ; since when he goes to the sacra- 
ment, he can never be sure whether he has received it or not. 
The outward acts may all be rightly performed, but as to the 
intention of the priest, who but God can look into his heart, 
and know for a certainty what this has been ? He may have in- 
tended something else, or his mind may have been diverted, so 
that he has had no particular intention about it ; in which case, 
the right of baptism is not valid, and the eucharist is a mere 
empty form. On this ground, it may well be doubted whether 
there is now an individual in the Church of Rome, from the 
Pope down to the meanest of his vassals, who can tell, for a 
certainty, whether he has been baptized; or whether he has 



THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS. 677* 

ever partaken of what he conceives to be the body and blood of 
Christ, 

Let the members of our churches be thankful that they are 
involved in no such frightful uncertainties. With us, the effi- 
cacy of the sacraments depends on no mere outward forms, — 
on no dubious intention of the officiating priest, — but upon the 
promised presence and blessing of the Saviour. And the sim- 
ple condition of our receiving this blessing is faith on our own 
part, —holy, saving faith in the crucified Lamb of God. If we 
have faith in Christ when we approach the sacraments, we 
know that we shall be accepted and blessed. Christ will him- 
self meet us at the baptismal font, or around the sacramental 
board, and grant us the tokens of his favor and love. 

No two methods of salvation can be more diverse than salva- 
tion by the sacraments, and salvation by the atoning blood of 
Christ. The former is the hope of mere formalists, the world 
over; the latter is the hope of the evangelical Christian. In 
the church of Rome, salvation by the sacraments is fully illus- 
trated. First, there is the sacrament of baptism, in which the 
infant is regenerated. Next, the sacraments of confirmation 
and the mass, in which the subject literally receives the Lord 
Jesus. All along through life, he has recourse, as occasion 
requires, to the sacrament of penance and priestly absolution. 
And to crown all is the sacrament of extreme unction. If an 
individual succeeds in securing all these, whether a believer or 
unbeliever, and whatever his character may be, he is sure of 
heaven. St. Peter has the keys, and a servant so faithful will 
never be rejected. Such is salvation by the sacraments ; — one 
of the grossest impositions, the most fatal delusions, that the 
great destroyer of human souls ever palmed upon the world. 

"We have spoken of the perversions and abuses of the sacra- 
ments. The benefits of them are very great. 

In the first place, they furnish an incontestable argument for 
the truth of Christianity. That these sacraments actually exist, 
in connection with the church of Christ, is a plain matter of 
fact, which no one can doubt ; and now it devolves upon the 
infidel, no less than upon the Christian, to account for this fact. 
The Scriptures inform us of the institution, origin, and design 



678 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

of the sacraments ; but set aside this account, and who can 
give us any other? Reject the Scriptures, and who can form a 
probable conjecture as to the manner in which the sacraments 
originated ? 

This argument is the more conclusive, since the sacrament of 
the supper is of a commemorative character. It was instituted 
as a memorial of the sufferings and death of Christ. Admit 
the story of his sufferings and death, and everything relating to 
the ordinance, — its object, its form, its character, its history, — 
all are natural and consistent. But deny this account, — reject 
the Scriptures, — and. who can tell how the sacrament of the 
supper should ever have been instituted ; or, if instituted, how 
it could have secured so early, and so universally, the observ- 
ance and the veneration of Christians? If we had no other 
argument for the truth of our religion than that drawn from the 
fact of the sacraments, this alone would be incontestable. 

Another important benefit of the sacraments consists in their 
giving visibility to the church of Christ. Without the sacra- 
ments, there might be a covenant of grace ; but having no vis- 
ible token, it would be comparatively out of sight, and might 
be overlooked and lost. There might be Christians, — followers 
of Christ; but having no visible mark as his followers, they 
might soon be merged and mingled in the world. Christians 
little think how much they are indebted, in this view, to the 
sacraments; and how kind and wise it was in their covenant 
God to provide them. He gave significant visible rites to his 
church, under the former dispensation. Eites differing in form, 
but equally significant, he still continues to his church. And it 
is hardly likely that, without them, the church could have sub- 
sisted, as a distinct body, to the present time. 

Other advantages, resulting from the sacraments, are even 
more obvious. As signs or symbols, they are full of good 
influences and blessings. The instructions they communicate, 
the invaluable lessons which they hold forth, might long ago 
have been lost to the world, had it not been for their mute but 
significant teachings. Or, if not wholly lost, the impression of 
these truths had been vastly diminished, and their moving. 



THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS. 679 

constraining, sanctifying influence had been comparatively 
taken away. 

The sealing virtue of the sacraments is, moreover, a great 
blessing to the people of God, as it furnishes them with new 
and increased motives to be mindful of their covenant engage- 
ments. They have bound themselves to be faithful, by solemn 
seals; and these seals are renewed, repeated, every time they 
come to the table of the Lord. 

But the great benefit of the sacraments is that of which I 
have before spoken,— the presence of Christ in them, — that 
rich blessing from Christ which always accompanies them, when 
received in a humble, believing manner. In these ordinances 
of his own appointment, Christ meets his beloved people, smiles 
upon them, communes with them, and makes himself known to 
them in the breaking of bread. He imparts such tokens of his 
spirit and grace as they can find nowhere else. They obtain a 
fresh anointing from the Holy One. They receive nourishment 
and strength by which to run the Christian race, maintain suc- 
cessfully the Christian conflict, and come off conquerors at the 
last through him who hath loved them and died for them. 



680 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTURE LXIII 

BAPTISM. 

The word baptism, from the Greek (tunutw, properly signifies 
a washing ; whether the substance washed be partially or wholly 
immersed in the liquid, or the liquid be applied to the substance, 
by running, pouring, rubbing, or sprinkling. There were "di- 
vers washings" (in the original baptisms) under the former 
dispensation ; some of which were performed by bathing, but 
more by sprinkling or affusion (Heb. ix. 10). 

Baptism, as a religious rite, is of great antiquity. It was 
practised, in connection with circumcision, on the' admission of 
proselytes to the Jewish church, long before the coming of 
Christ. As the fact of Jewish proselyte baptism has been dis- 
puted, I will exhibit, briefly, the evidence on which it rests. 

1. The baptism of proselytes appears altogether natural and 
probable, considering the genius of the Mosaic institutions, and 
the views which the Israelites were accustomed to entertain of 
the Gentile nations. Nothing was more common, among this 
people, than lustrations and purifications by washing or bap- 
tism. In these the external part of their religion in no small 
degree consisted. And as they considered the Gentiles to be 
altogether unclean, how natural for them to insist, when any of 
these came over to their religion, that they should be ceremoni- 
ally purified by the application of water ! We might infer, a 
priori, considering the peculiar customs and notions of the 
Jews, that they would require the baptism of Gentile proselytes. 

2. That the Jews were familiar with the right of baptism 
previous to the coming of Christ, is implied in the question 
addressed to John, by those who were sent unto him from Jeru- 
salem : " Why baptizest thou, if thou be not the Christ, neither 



BAPTISM. 681 

Elias, neither that prophet?" (John i. 25.) They did not ask, 
What new rite is this ? but, Why do you administer it ? Their 
language implies that they had been accustomed to the rite 
itself; but if John was "not the Christ, neither Elias, neither 
that prophet," they understood not why he had taken it upon 
him to baptize. 

3. The Jewish rabbins, ancient and modern, bear testimony 
to the custom of baptizing proselytes. This practice is men- 
tioned and enjoined in both the Talmuds. It is thus spoken of 
by Maimonides, a learned Jew, who flourished in the twelfth 
century: "In all ages, when a Gentile is willing to enter into 
the covenant of Israel, and place himself under the wings of the 
divine majesty, and take upon him the yoke of the law, he must 
be circumcised, and baptized, and briug a sacrifice ; or, if it be 
a woman, be baptized, and bring a sacrifice." 

4. Other ancient writers, besides Jews, bear testimony to the 
fact of their baptizing their proselytes. Thus Arrian, a heathen 
philosopher at Rome, A. D. 140, reproaches those who turned 
proselytes to the Jews, calling them the baptized ones. And 
Cyprian, a Christian father of the third century, says: "The 
case of the Jews, who were to be baptized by the apostles, was 
different from that of the Gentles ; for the Jews had already, 
and a long time ago, the baptism of the law, and of Moses, and 
were now to be baptized in the name of- Jesus Christ." 

5. The existence of such a rite as baptism among the Jews 
can hardly be accounted for, unless it be traced to a period an- 
terior to the Christian era. We certainly know that they bap- 
tized their proselytes in the second century, and have continued 
to do so ever since. But how was this rite introduced among 
them? Was it copied from the Christians? Is it likely that, at 
so early a period, or at any period, the Jews, the most inveter- 
ate enemies of Christ, would copy one of his sacramental rites, 
and incorporate it among the institutions of their venerated 
lawgiver? To those who have any knowledge of Jewish preju- 
dices, the supposition will appear incredible, — we had almost 
said impossible. 

It follows, therefore, that the Jews must have received the 
custom of baptizing proselytes (as they profess to have done) 

86 



682 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

from the patriarchs of their nation, and that it was in common 
use among 1 them at the coming of the Saviour. 

The first mention of baptism, in the New Testament, occurs 
in the history of John the Baptist. It has been made a ques- 
tion respecting the baptism of John, whether it was properly a 
Christian ordinance, — the same as that instituted by Christ 
after his resurrection, and observed in the church in all periods 
since. My own opinion is, that the baptism of John was not a 
Christian ordinance, but rather an introductory rite, intended to 
prepare the way for the gospel dispensation. In this I agree 
not only with Origen, Chrysostom, and others in the ancient 
church, but with the most respectable writers, Baptist and Pedo- 
baptist, of the present day. Chrysostom says: "The baptism 
of John was, as it were, a bridge, which, from the baptism of 
the Jews, made a way to that of the Saviour. It Was superior to 
the first, but inferior to the second." 1 The following are some 
of the reasons urged by Robert Hall, and others, to show that 
the baptism of John was a preparatory rite, and not a Christian 
ordinance. 

1. This baptism took place under the Jewish dispensation, 
which continued, in all its force and significance, until the death 
of Christ. 

2. Christian baptism originated in the express command of 
Christ, issued after his resurrection: "Go ye, therefore, and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt, xxviii. 17) . No 
such origin can be claimed for the baptism of John. He as- 
cribes his commission to the Father (John i. 33). 

3. The entire work of John, both his preaching and his bap- 
tism, was evidently preparatory. He came to "prepare the way 
of the Lord." He came to point out to the children of Israel 
their Saviour. "That he (Christ) should be made manifest to 
Israel-, therefore, ami come baptizing with water" (John i. 31). 
Here John sets before us, explicitly, the design of his baptism ; 
and certainly it was very different from that of Christian bap- 
tism. 

4. John did not baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, 

i Homily, 24. 



BAPTISM. 683 

and the Holy Ghost. This we know, because some who had 
received his baptism confessed that they had "not heard 
whether there be any Holy Ghost" (Acts xix. 2). 

5. Some of those whom John had baptized were afterwards 
baptized by the apostles. This, in particular, was the case with 
certain disciples whom Paul found at Ephesus (Acts xix. 5). 
In all probability, it was the case with many others. 

For all these reasons we think it demonstrable that the bap- 
tism of John could not have been Christian baptism, but was an 
intermediate, introductory rite, intended to prepare the way for 
the coming of fhe Messiah and his kingdom. And the same 
may be said of the baptisms administered by the disciples of 
Christ previous to his death. They preached as John did: 
" Prepare ye the way of the Lord ; " " The kingdom of heaven 
is at hand ; " and their baptisms were of the same character and 
design as his. 

In my last Lecture, I spoke of baptism as one of the sacra- 
ments of the church. It is, as circumcision anciently was, a 
token of the church covenant (Gen. xvii. 11). It is a visible 
mark, by which all those who share the blessings of the cove- 
nant, or are in any way connected with the Christian church, 
are to be distinguished. 

With regard to its import, baptism may be considered as both 
a sign and a seal. As a sign it signifies the cleansing of the 
soul from sin, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of 
the Holy Ghost. In other words, it signifies regeneration. As 
circumcision shadowed forth, signified, the circumcision of the 
heart, so baptism signifies the regeneration of the heart. This 
regeneration of the heart is sometimes called a baptism of the 
Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit, or regeneration of the heart, 
is the inward grace, of which baptism with water is the outward 
sign. 

But baptism is not only a sign, but a seal, — a seal of the 
covenant of the church, — in which sense it has a binding force. 
It binds the conditions and promises of the covenant, both ways. 
It binds the promises of the covenant to the believer, and binds 
the believer to fulfil his covenant engagements to be the Lord's. 
In this solemn ordinance, the person worthily receiving it 



684 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

avouches the Lord Jehovah, Father, Son, aud Holy Ghost, to 
be his God, and gives up himself to him to be his servant, — 
binding himself henceforth to live devoted to his service and 
glory. 

The Christian community has long been agitated with an 
unhappy controversy respecting the mode of Christian baptism ; 
the- one part affirming, and the other denying, that a total im- 
mersion in water is essential to the ordinance. This, it should 
15e kept in mind, is the precise question in dispute ; not whether 
immersion is valid baptism ; nor whether it has been frequently, 
and at some periods commonly, practised in the church ; but 
whether it is essential to the ordinance, — so essential that there 
can be no baptism without it. 

We take the negative of this question, and for the following 
reasons : — 

1. The rite of immersion is not fitted, adapted, for universal 
practice. The health of ministers is often such as to render 
it unsafe for them to go into the water. The health of those 
desiring baptism is more frequently such as to render it unsafe, 
perhaps impossible, for them to receive the ordinance in this 
way. In some parts of the earth, and at some seasons of the 
year, it must be very inconvenient, if not impracticable, to ad- 
minister baptism by immersion. Now, is it likely that our Lord, 
who intended that his religion should be universal, would ap- 
pend to it a rite, and make it essential, which was so ill-fitted for 
universal practice. 

2. The signification of water baptism indicates the propriety 
of some other mode of administration besides immersion. As 
I have said already, the baptism of water is a sign, an emblem 
of spiritual baptism. It shadows forth, by an expressive sym- 
bol, the cleansing, purifying influences of the Holy Spirit. 
Hence, the mode of Water baptism might be expected to cor- 
respond to the manner in which the Spirit is represented as 
descending upon the heart. But this is uniformly by pouring 
or sprinkling. "I will pour out my Spirit unto you." "I will 
sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." This 
pouring out and sprinkling of the Holy Ghost is in Scripture 
called the baptism of the Holy Ghost ; of which water baptism 



BAPTISM. 685 

is the instituted sign. It is very evident, therefore, that pour- 
ing or sprinkling must be proper, not to say the most proper, 
mode of applying water in baptism. 

3. The original words used to denote the ordinance of bap- 
tism do not signify immersion exclusively. They admit of a 
wider signification. This is evident, — 

(1.) From their etymology. They are derived from the 
Greek 6anro), a word which it is now admitted does not inva- 
riably signify immerse. Mr. Carson, a learned Baptist writer, 
shows conclusively that this word signifies to dye, as well as to 
dip, and to dye or color in any manner. It is the word used in 
the Septuagint, where the body of Nebuchadnezzar is said to 
have been "wet with the dew of heaven" (Dan. v. 21). Cer- 
tainly his body was not immersed in the dew. 

(2.) The synonymes of ^rrr^w show that its signification is 
not confined to the idea of immersion. It is used interchangably 
with lova and vitttu, which properly signify to wash. To give 
but a single instance. The prophet Elisha sent a message to 
Naaman, saying, "Go and Xovaoa, wash, in Jordan seven times, 
and thou shalt be clean." And Naaman "went down, and 
sSannaaro, washed himself seven times in Jordan, according to 
the saying of the man of God" (2 Kings v. 10, 14). Evidently 
lovb) and fianTi'cu mean the same thing here, and are used .in the 
general sense of wash. 

(3.) Accordingly we find that whenever the authors of our 
English Bible have translated the original words denoting bap- 
tism, they have uniformly given them the sense of washing. 
Thus the divers @umuT[ioi$, spoken of in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, are rendered "divers washings" (Heb. ix. 10). The 
Pharisee marvelled that our Saviour had not e^anTiadi], been 
baptized before dinner. Here again the word is rendered washed 
(Luke xi. 38). "And when they come from the market, ex- 
cept they $unrL(j(x)VTai, be baptized, they eat not; and many 
other things there be which they have received to hold, as the 
.puTtuaiuoug, baptism of cups, and pots, and of brazen vessels, 
and of tables" (Mark vii. 3, 4). In both these instances the 
original word denoting baptism is rendered in the same way. 

Frequently, when our translators have transcribed (and not 



686 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

translated) the words in question, they have connected them 
with particles which show that they intended to use them in the 
general sense of washing. This is true in all those cases in 
which persons are said to be baptized with water, and with the 
Spirit. No English scholar would say immerse with water. 

It should be remarked, too, that our English translators used 
the original words in this way, not because they had any preju- 
dice against immersion and in favor of sprinkling ; for in King 
James's time immersion was the more common mode of bap- 
tism in the Church of England. They used the original words 
as they did, because the sense and connection obviously required 
it. 

(4.) The most respectable lexicographers, ancient and mod- 
ern, concur in giving to the Greek words denoting baptism a 
wider signification than that of simple immersion. In proof of 
this, I may refer to Stephanus, Scapula, Passor, Suidas, Heder- 
icus, Coulon, Parkhurst, Aiusworth, Schleusner, and Wahl. 
Indeed, Mr. Carson, after announcing his position that §ami;oj 
"always signifies to dip," admits that he has "all the lexicogra- 
phers against him ; " — a strong indication that his position is 
untenable. 

(5.) But that which is most decisive in regard to the meaning 
of the words denoting baptism, is their use. They are certainly 
used by authors, sacred and profane, in other senses beside that 
of immersion. They are so used in the apocryphal books of the 
Old Testament, and so transcribed by our English translators. 
(See Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 25, and Judith xii. 7.) They are so 
used by the early Christian fathers. Origen represents the wood 
over which water was poured, at the command of Elijah, as hav- 
ing been baptized. Cyprian, Jerome, and some other of the 
fathers understood the prediction, "I will sprinkle clean water 
upon you, and ye shall be clean," as having reference to water 
baptism (Ezek. xxxvi. 25). The "baptism of tears and of 
blood," which was a favorite expression with the early fathers, 
utterly precludes the idea of immersion. 

The words denoting baptism are used in the New Testament 
where they cannot signify immersion. Thus, in a passage already 
quoted, we read of "the baptism of cups, and pots, and brazen 



BAPTISM. 687 

vessels, and of tables" (Markvii. 4). Possibly the "cups, and 
pots, and brazen vessels," may have been immersed in washing ; 
but is it likely that the Jews immersed their tables, — or rather 
the xltvavy couches, on which they were accustomed to re- 
cline at meals ? Then we have the baptism of the whole con- 
gregation of Israel "in the cloud, and in the sea" (1 Cor. x. 2). 
Whatever the mode of this great baptism may have been, we 
are sure that the Israelites were not immersed in the sea : for 
we are told expressly that they " went through it on dry ground" 
(Ex. xiv. 22). 

I have dwelt the more largely on the signification of the dis- 
puted words, because much of the controversy obviously rests 
here. If (frnro^u has but one meaning, and that is invariably 
immerse, it might seem that baptism should be, in all cases, 
by immersion. But if this word has a more general significa- 
tion, carrying with it the idea of washing, cleansing, purifying, 
etc., without shutting us up to the idea of immersion, then 
baptism may be lawfully administered in other modes besides 
immersion. 

4. The circumstances of several of the baptisms recorded in 
the Xew Testament indicate some other mode besides immersion. 
Without going at length* into a consideration of all these bap- 
tisms, let me ask any impartial person to contemplate the 
baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost ; or the 
baptism of Paul, in the peculiar situation in which he was placed ; 
or the baptism of Cornelius and his family, when the apostle said, 
"Can any man forbid water," i. e., that it should be brought; 
or the baptism of the jailer and his household by one of his 
prisoners, in the midst of an agitated and affrighted city, and 
at the dead hour of night ; and in whatever mode he may think 
these different persons were baptized, he will find it difficult to 
satisfy himself that they could have been immersed. 

5. Immersion was never considered as essential to baptism till 
subsequent to the Reformation from Popery. We say essential ; 
for this, it will be remembered, is the point in dispute. That 
immersions were frequent in the ancient church, — more frequent 
at some periods than any other mode, — I have no doubt. But 
at times when immersions most generally prevailed, the sick 



688 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

were always baptized in some other mode, and such baptisms 
were considered as perfectly valid. A question was propounded 
to Cyprian, about the middle of the third century, "whether 
they are to be esteemed right Ghristians who have been only 
sprinkled with water, and not washed or dipped ; " to which this 
venerable bishop replied, that in case of necessity, "the sprink- 
ling of water is of equal validity with the laver." Cave says, that 
" the ancient Christians did not hold sprinkling to be unlawful, 
especially in cases of necessity, or where convenience of immerg- 
ing could not be had." Calvin tells us, that "the substance of 
baptism being retained, the church, from the beginning, enjoyed 
a liberty of using somewhat different modes." Dr. Wall, who 
had a partiality for immersion, says: "On extraordinary occa- 
sions, baptism, by affusion of water on the face, was by the 
ancients accounted sufficient baptism. Of this," he adds, " there 
are many proofs." I might here cite a long list of persons, 
reaching from the third century to the sixteenth, who were bap- 
tized in other ways besides immersion ; but it is not necessary, 
since it is admitted by Mr. Robinson, and other learned Baptist 
writers, that, "before the Reformation, sprinkling was held 
valid in cases of necessity." 

We see, then, that the doctrine of 'exclusive immersion, as 
now inculcated by our Baptist brethren, is a novelty in the 
church. Such was not the doctrine of the ancient church at 
any period, and was not known or held till the rise of the 
Anabaptists in Germany, soon after the reformation from 
Popery. 

It has been made a question whether baptism in any case 
should be repeated. The opinion of the church has been that 
it should not be. 

1. Because regeneration, of which baptism is a sign, is not 
repeated. 

2. As a seal of the church covenant, it should not be re- 
peated. The seal of the covenant, once applied, needs not to 
be applied again. 

3. As an initiatory rite, by which persons become connected 
with the visible church, baptism should not be repeated. One 
initiation is enough. 



BAPTISM. 689 

4. A repetition of baptism upon the same subject, is at best 
a taking of the name of the triune God in vain. # 

These remarks apply only to cases where the fact of baptism 
is unquestionable. Cases sometimes occur where it is doubtful, 
both to the subject himself and to others, whether he has been 
baptized. Under such circumstances it will be prudent to 
administer baptism ; more especially if the subject desires it. 

The question may be asked, whether baptisms administered in 
the Eomish church, or in Unitarian and«Universalist churches, are 
to be regarded as valid. This inquiry resolves itself iuto another ; 
viz. , Is the church in which the questionable baptism was ad- 
ministered to be regarded as a true church of Christ ? Baptism 
is an ordinance of the church. It is to be administered in the 
church, and by one who is a proper minister of Christ. Is then 
the Eomish church a church of Christ? and are its priests or 
ministers ministers of Christ ? I think not. Of course I do not 
regard the Eomish baptisms as valid. And the same rule may 
be applied to Unitarian and Universalist congregations. Those 
who do not regard these as proper churches of Christ, nor their 
teachers as Christian ministers, will not, of course, respect the 
validity of their baptisms. 

I only add, that differences of opinion respecting the mode of 
baptism, which exist among evangelical Christians, — those who 
are agreed on all essential points of doctrine, experience, and 
even of church government, — should be treated with much can- 
dor and liberality. The day of retort, reproach, and bitterness 
we hope is past and gone forever. We may have our prefer- 
ences as to a particular mode of baptism ; but where persons 
truly respect the ordinance, and religiously observe it according 
to their understanding of it, we ought not to exclude them from 
our fellowship and confidence because their opinion may differ 
from our own. They do what they think the law of Christ 
requires, and to their own Master they should stand or fall. 

For myself, I prefer pouring or sprinkling to any other mode 
of baptism. I do so, because it is a convenient mode, and be- 
cause it shadows forth, more significantly than any other, that of 
which I conceive baptism to be the outward sign ; viz., the out- 
pouring of the Spirit, and the renewal of the heart. Still, if any 

87 



690 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

of our Christian brethren prefer immersion, by all means let them 
be gratified. Immersion is certainly an ancient mode of baptism ; 
it was at some periods the common mode ; and I can not only 
extend to my brother thus receiving the ordinance, the right 
hand of fellowship, but should be quite willing, if requested, 
to administer it to him myself. 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 691 



LECTUEE LXIY. 

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

The proper subjects of baptism are, — 

1. Those unbaptized adults, who give satisfactory evidence of 
piety. That the apostles required a profession of piety in those 
adults whom they admitted to baptism is very evident from the 
sacred writings. Thus Peter said to the large company of 
inquirers on the day of Pentecost : "Kepent, and be baptized, 
every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus." And it was 
those only who "gladly received the word" who were baptized 
at this time (Acts ii. 38, 41)* It was when the Samaritans "be- 
lieved Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of 
God," that "they were baptized, both men and women" (Acts 
viii. 12). When the eunuch requested baptism, Philip told him, 
"If thou believest with all thine heart, thou may est. And he 
said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts viii. 
37). Ananias was divinely assured of the piety of Saul of Tar- 
sus ; and so was Peter of the piety of Cornelius and his family, 
before those persons were admitted to baptism (Acts ix. 12 ; x. 
47). The Lord opened the hearts of Lydia and of the jailer, and 
brought them to the exercise of true repentance, before they and 
their households were baptized (Acts xvi. 14, 33). While Paul 
abode at Corinth, many of the inhabitants of that city "believed 
and were baptized" (Acts xviii. 8). The testimony of Scrip- 
ture on this point is uniform and abundant, all showing that 
before any adult person could be received to baptism by the 
apostles, he must make a creditable profession of piety. He 
must give satisfactory evidence that he was a true believer in 
the Son of God. 

2. In addition to the class of persons here referred to, it is 



692 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

believed that children, under the care and government of pious, 
covenanting parents are to be baptized. As this is a disputed 
proposition, it will be necessary to examine it with care. 

It will be thought, perhaps, that the passages already quoted 
— those in which faith and repentance are spoken of as neces- 
sary in order to baptism — are in direct contradiction to the 
practice of baptizing children. But of whom are faith and re- 
pentance spoken of as necessary in order to baptism ? Not of 
infant children, but of adult persons, — those who are capable of 
faith, — those who come to the ordinance on their own account. 
The passages above quoted touch not the case of little children 
at all. They do not refer to them. They decide nothing as to 
the right of children to baptism, one way or the other. 

That the children of believing, covenanting parents are enti- 
tled to baptism, may be shown from various considerations. 

1. This duty is reasonable in itself, and is in accordance with 
our best affections. In the children of those we love we all 
naturally feel a peculiar interest. A good prince would wish, 
and woo id provide, that the children of his beloved and faithful 
friends should be placed in a near relation to himself. And is 
it not reasonable to suppose that the Prince of Life has some- 
thing of the same feeling, — that he will grant tokens of peculiar 
favor to the children of his covenant people ? Accordingly we 
find, — 

2. That in all God's covenant dealings with men, in former 
times, he has shown favor to the children of those whom he has 
taken into covenant with himself. Thus it was in the covenants 
with Noah and Abraham and David. God dealt favorably with 
the children of Lot for their father's sake. When the congre- 
gation of Israel stood before the Lord to enter into covenant 
with him, he commanded that their " little ones " should come 
with them (Deut. xxix. 11). He declares himself to be a God 
keeping covenant with those that love him, to a thousand gener- 
ations. Such has been the course of God's covenant dealing 
with his people in former ages. How unlikely that he has 
swerved from it in gospel times, and sundered the connection 
before subsisting between believing parents and their children ! 

3. Had children been deprived of their interest in the cove- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 693 

nant under the gospel, believing Jewish parents in the primitive 
church would certainly have complained. In the days of the 
apostles many thousands of the Jews believed, who were all 
zealous of the law. They were tenacious even of their former 
burdens ; and would they silently relinquish their accustomed 
privileges ? Would they relinquish so great a privilege as that 
of having their children connected with them in the covenant of 
the church ? Yet we hear not a word of complaint from any 
Jew on the subject. There was no objection to the gospel by 
friend or foe, on this ground. It is morally certain, therefore, 
that, in respect to covenant relations and privileges, the chil- 
dren of believers under the gospel " were as aforetime " ( Jer. 
xxx. 20). 

4. It is a conclusive argument in favor of infant baptism, 
that baptism is now substituted in place of the ancient circum- 
cision. That baptism has come into the place of circumcision, 
we think susceptible of the fullest proof. 

(1.) Baptism is now, what circumcision was formerly, an 
instituted prerequisite to a regular standing in the visible 
church. The visible church has been the same, under both dis- 
pensations. Christ did not destroy or abandon the Zion of the 
Old Testament and build upon its ruins a new gospel church. 
But he "thoroughly purged his floor" (Matt. iii. 12). He 
purified his church. He broke off the unbelieving Jews from 
their good olive tree, and grafted the Gentile believers upon 
the same stock (Rom. xi. 17). Circumcision was necessary in 
order to a standing in this visible church under the former dis- 
pensation, as baptism is now. In this respect, baptism has 
come in the place of circumcision. 

(2.) Baptism is now, what circumcision formerly was, the 
visible token of the church covenant. The covenant of the 
church, like the church itself, has been the same under both 
dispensations. It has been under both the covenant with 
Abraham. This covenant has never been abolished. It is 
spoken of in the Old Testament as everlasting, and in the New 
as to exist forever (Gen. xvii. 7; Luke i. 55). It is repre- 
sented by Paul as a covenant of "promise," as "confirmed of 
God in Christ ; " and we are assured that " the law, which was 



694 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul " it, and 
render it of no effect (Gal. iii. 17). Believers under the gos- 
pel are spoken of as children of the covenant with Abraham 
(Acts iii. 25). It is on account of their interest in this cov- 
enant that they are so often denominated " Abraham's seed," 
and that Abraham is represented as " the father of all them that 
believe" (Gal. iii. 29; Rom. iv. 11). In short, the covenant 
with Abraham, as to the substance of it, has been the covenant 
of the visible church, under both dispensations. Of this cov- 
enant, circumcision was the ancient token, and baptism is the 
present token. In this respect we see that baptism has come 
in the place of circumcision. 

(3.) Baptism and circumcision are of the same general im- 
port. Circumcision was both a sign and a seal. As a sign it 
represented the circumcision of the heart, or regeneration. 
" Circumcision is of the heart," says Paul ; " in the spirit, and 
not in the letter" (Rom. ii. 29). As a seal-, circumcision con- 
firmed "the righteousness of faith," or the covenant of grace 
(Rom, iv. 11). Baptism, too, is both a sign and a seal. As 
a sign, it signifies "the washing of regeneration," or the bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost. As a seal, it binds both the conditions 
and the promises of the covenant of grace. We thus see that, 
when circumcision was taken away as the initiatory rite of the 
church and the token of its covenant, baptism, a rite having 
the same general import, was substituted in its place. 

(4.) The Scriptures countenance the idea that baptism is 
substituted in place of circumcision. "Beware," says Paul, 
" of the concision ; for we" — we who have been baptized — "are 
the circumcision, who worship God in the spirit" (Phil. iii. 
2,3). Again, "Ye are circumcised with the circumcision made 
without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh 
by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism" 
(Col. ii. 11. 12). In other words, Ye tire circumcised, having 
been baptized. To be sure, the circumcision and baptism here 
spoken of are both spiritual. But if the two ordinances are 
spiritually the same, and the one was instituted in the church 
on the removal of the other, is not this a substitution of the 
one for the other? 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 695 

(5.) The Christian fathers considered baptism as having 
come in the place of circumcision. Justin Martyr says : "We 
have not received this carnal circumcision, but the spiritual 
circumcision, and we have received it by baptism. It is al- 
lowed to all persons to receive it in the same way." In another 
work attributed to Justin, the question is asked: "If circum- 
cision be a good thing, why do we not use it, as well as the 
Jews?" To which the father replies: "We are circumcised, 
by baptism, with the circumcision of Christ." 

The question of Fidas 'to Cyprian and the Council of Car- 
thage, whether it be lawful to baptize an infant sooner than the 
eighth day, necessarily supposes it to have been an established 
opinion that baptism had come in the place of circumcision. 
On no other ground could such a question have possibly arisen. 
In his reply Cyprian says: "Christ has given us baptism, the 
spiritual circumcision." 

Basil says : "A Jew does not delay circumcision, for fear of 
the threatening, that every soul that is not circumcised the 
eighth day shall be cut off from his people ; and dost thou put 
off this circumcision made without hands, which is performed 
in baptism, when thou nearest the Lord himself say, Except 
one be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God?" Several of the early fathers (like Basil in 
this instance) speak of baptism as ".the circumcision made 
without hands," quoting the language of Paul in Col. ii. 11. 
This shows that they understood the apostles as teaching the 
substitution of baptism in place of circumcision. 1 

But if baptism has taken the place, in the church, of the an- 
cient circumcision, and if such was. the understanding of the 
apostles and their immediate successors, then the question about 
baptizing infants should be regarded as settled. There cer- 
tainly was a command to circumcise infants ; and if baptism has 
been substituted for circumcision, the same command is valid 
in favor of their baptism. 

5. The Jewish proselyte baptism furnishes another argument 
for the baptism of children. It was shown in my last Lecture 

1 Those who would verify the above quotations from the fathers, may consult Wall's 
History of Infant Baptism, vol. i. chaps. 2-4. 



696 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

that at the time of our Saviour's appearance, and for ages pre- 
vious, the Jews had been accustomed to baptize their proselytes. 
And they always baptized children with their parents. Conse- 
quently, when our Saviour gave the command, "Go ye and 
teach," disciple, proselyte, "all nations, baptizing them," etc., 
his disciples must necessarily have understood him to intend 
that kind of baptism to which both he and they had been accus- 
tomed ; viz., the baptism of children with their parents. How 
could they have understood him in any other way? Under 
these circumstances, the disciples needed no express command 
to authorize the baptism of children. They rather needed an 
express prohibition, in case the practice was to be discontinued. 
But such prohibition we nowhere find. It was never given. 

6. Our Saviour and his apostles taught and practised just as 
we might expect they would do, on supposition they intended 
that children should be baptized ; and just as we should not ex- 
pect on the contrary supposition. In order to determine what 
we might or might not expect of Christ and his apostles, it will 
be necessary to keep in mind the established customs of the 
age in which they lived. In the Jewish church, children had 
always been connected with their parents, and early received 
the token of the everlasting covenant. Also the children of 
proselytes were connected in covenant with their parents, and 
entitled to the initial rites of circumcision and baptism. And 
now what might be expected of Christ and his apostles, on 
supposition they intended to put an end to this state of things ? 
Not silence, surely. Silence would be a virtual indorsement of 
it. On this supposition they would have lost no opportunity of 
insisting that the ancient covenant connection between parents 
and children was abolished, and must no longer be recognized 
in the rites of the church. But did they pursue a course like 
this? Never, in a sinole instance. 

What, then, might be expected of Chrisfrancl his apostles, on 
supposition they intended that the existing covenant connec- 
tion between parents and children should be continued? Not, 
indeed, that they should enjoin it by express precepts ; for this 
would be to enjoin expressly what every one already understood 
and practised. But they might be expected often to allude, 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 697 

with approbation, to this covenant connection, and to drop ex- 
pressions which implied it. They would be likely, also, as oc- 
casions presented, to baptize households, when those at the head 
of them made profession of their faith. And this, I hardly need 
say, is the course which our Saviour and his apostles actually 
pursued. Christ approved the practice of bringing infants to 
him, to receive his blessing, and declared that " of such is the 
kingdom of God" (Luke xviii. 15). He spoke of little chil- 
dren being received in his name, or as belonging to him 
(Mark ix. 37, 41). Peter taught believing parents, that the 
promise was to them and to their children (Acts ii. 39). 
Paul affirms that " the blessing of Abraham," — an important 
part of which consisted in the covenant connection of his chil- 
dren, — "has come on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ" 
(Gal. iii. 14). He also calls the children of a believing parent 
holy, — that is, dedicated, consecrated to the Lord (1 Cor. 
vii. 14). Paul repeatedly baptized households, on the profes- 
sion of parents, or of those who had the charge of them. 
Lydia believed, and she and her household were baptized. 
The jailer believed, and he and all his were baptized straight- 
away (Acts xvi. 15, 33). He also baptized the household of 
Stephanas (1 Cor. i. 16). Such is the manner in which 
Christ and his apostles taught and practised in reference to this 
subject; and, to my apprehension, it is precisely what might 
have been expected of them, on supposition they intended that 
the existing covenant connection between parents and children 
should be continued. 

7. The testimony of history is conclusive, in favor of infant 
baptism. It has been observed already that the Christian 
fathers, from Justin downwards, considered baptism as having 
come in the place of circumcision. This fact shows what their 
opinion must have been in regard to the question of infant bap- 
tism. Irenagus, who was in the second generation after the 
apostles, speaks expressly of baptized infants. Tertullian, a 
little later, although he advises delay in the case of infants and 
unmarried persons, yet refers to infant baptism as a prevailing 
and established practice. Origen, who was born within eighty- 
five years after the death of the Apostle John, and was de- 



698 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

scencled from Christian ancestors, who must have lived in the 
apostolic age, speaks repeatedly and expressly of infant bap- 
tism, and declares that it had come down from the apostles. 
Subsequent to this period, infant baptism is mentioned often, 
and in the most positive terms, by all the principal Christian 
fathers, as Cyprian, Optatus, Basil, Gregory, Ambrose, Jerome, 
Chrysostom and Augustine. It is recognized, in the acts of 
councils, as well as the writings of individuals. It is repre- 
sented as resting on apostolical example and authority. Indeed, 
infant baptism was rejected by no one in the primitive church, 
if we except some classes of heretics, who rejected all water 
baptism. Pelagius was accused of denying infant baptism, but 
he repelled the charge with indignation. "I never heard of 
any," says he, "not the most impious heretic, who denied bap- 
tism to infants ; for who can be so impious as to hinder infants 
from being baptized, and born again in Christ, and so make 
them miss of the kingdom of God ? " 

Dr. Wall, who has so thoroughly investigated the history of 
infant baptism as to leave little to be done by those who come 
after him, and to whom I am indebted for the above authorities, 
assures us, that the first body of men, of whom he can find 
any account, who denied baptism to infants, were the Petro- 
brussians, a sect of the Albigenses, in the former part of the 
twelfth century. And Milner says that, " a few instances ex- 
cepted, the existence of antipeclobaptisms seems scarcely to 
have taken place in the church of Christ, till a little after the 
beginning of the Reformation from Popery." 

Such, then, is the history of infant baptism ; and the argu- 
ment from this source in favor of the divine origin and author- 
ity of the practice is deemed conclusive. If infant baptism does 
not rest on the ground of apostolic example, how can it be ac- 
counted for, that it should have been introduced so early into 
the church, and prevailed so universally, and that, too, without 
a whisper of dissension, or a note of alarm? We have cata- 
logues extant of all the different sects of professing Christians, 
in the first four centuries, — the very period when infant bap- 
tism must have been introduced, if it were not of divine origi- 
nal. Yet there is no mention made of any sect, except those 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 699 

which denied water baptism altogether, who did not consider 
infant baptism as a divine institution. Is it not certain, then, 
that infant baptism is a divine institution ; — that it is not an 
innovation, but was sanctioned by the apostles themselves? 

Will it be said in reply, that infant communion prevailed 
as early and as universally in the church as infant baptism? 
But this is not true. We hear nothing of infant communion, 
till the time of Cyprian, about the middle of the third century. 
We know when, and where, and for what reason, this latter 
practice was introduced ; and there was no pretence, ever, that 
it had come from the apostles. 

It may be inquired here, whether baptized children are mem- 
bers of the visible church. My own opinion is, that although 
such children sustain a peculiar and important relation to the 
church, and may be said to hold a covenant connection with it, 
still this connection does not amount to membership. Cer- 
tainly, they are not members in full communion, and subject, 
as such, to the discipline of the church. 

Baptism is an instituted prerequisite to membership in the 
church of Christ, but it does not, of itself, constitute member- 
ship in any case. Adult persons must be admitted to the church 
by vote, in addition to their baptism, or they do not become 
regular members. And the same is true of those who are bap- 
tized in infancy. 

It may be inquired, further, whether baptized children sus- 
tain the same relation to the Christian church that circumcised 
children did to the Jewish church. We think not precisely the 
same. Owing to the national character of the Jewish church, 
the children sustained a sort of political connection with it, 
which does not now exist. The Jewish children, however, 
were not, at the first, members in full communion. They were 
not admitted to the Passover till they arrived at a certain age. 
Our Saviour's parents took him with them to the Passover, at 
the age of twelve years, "according to the custom of the feast" 
(Luke ii. 42). The most respectable commentators decide that 
this was as early as the Jewish children were permitted to be 
present on such occasions. Dr. Gill, an eminent Baptist writer, 
says : "According to the maxims of the Jews, persons were not 



I 



700 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

obliged to the duties of the law, nor subject to its penalties, 
until, if females, they were at the age of twelve years and one 
day ; and if males, at the age of thirteen years and one day. 
They were not reckoned adult church members, till then ; nor 
then either, unless worthy persons; for so it is said, 'He that 
is worthy is called, at thirteen years of age, a son of the con- 
gregation of Israel; that is, a member of the church.'" 1 

Of the import and design of infant baptism, I propose to treat 
in my next Lecture. Let me say, in conclusion, that the ques- 
tion of infant baptism does not rest, as some suppose, on the in- 
terpretation of a few doubtful passages in the New Testament, 
but goes to the very constitution of God's church, and requires 
to be studied and settled there. In the church of old were 
children connected in covenant with their parents, and was the 
token of the covenant applied to them? And are the church 
and its covenant the same under both dispensations? How, 
then, is the inference to be avoided or resisted, that the chil- 
dren of church members now are connected in covenant with 
their parents, and that the visible token of the covenant, bap- 
tism, should be applied to them? 

The right of children to baptism, I repeat, lies in the very 
constitution of God's church. Assume this right, and every- 
thing pertaining to the church is plain and consistent, from 
one end of the Bible to the other. But deny this right, to- 
gether with those facts and principles which are necessarily 
involved in it, and the two Testaments can no longer be har- 
monized, nor can the New Testament be made consistent with 
itself. 

1 Commentary on Luke ii. 42. 



IMPORT,.. DESIGN, AND USES OF INFANT BAPTISM. 701 



LECTUBE LXY. 

IMPORT, DESIGN, AND USES OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

In my last Lecture, I endeavored to vindicate the propriety 
of infant baptism, and to show that it is of divine institution. 
But if this rite is of divine institution, it doubtless has a mean- 
ing, which may be gathered from the Scriptures, and which 
ought to be distinctly understood. Until it is understood, the 
duties growing out of it will not be known, and consequently 
will not be performed. ; * 

It has been observed already that baptism, like circumcision, 
is both a sign and a seal. As a sign, it is significant of impor- 
tant truths. As a seal, it is connected with a covenant, — 
requiring duties to be performed, and promising important 
blessings. This is true of baptism generally ; and it is equally 
true of baptism when applied to children. It will be necessary 
to contemplate infant baptism in the twofold light which has 
here been presented. And first, as a sign. What is signified 
in the baptism of children? What facts, what truths, is the 
ordinance calculated to teach and impress ? 

1. It plainly teaches that infants are moral beings, and capa- 
ble of receiving spiritual blessings. Some there are, who re- 
gard infants as little more than mere animals, without intelli- 
gence, perhaps without souls, having no moral capacities or 
character more than the brutes. But if infants are without 
intellectual and moral qualities, without souls, why are they 
baptized ? What propriety in baptizing a mere animal ? For 
such an application of the ordinance, what meaning or reason 
could be assigned? When our Saviour was upon earth, little 
children were brought to him, that they might receive his bless- 
ing. But can we suppose that he would have suffered mere 



702 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

animals to be brought to him in this way ? Would ho have laid 
his hands on little animals, without souls, and prayed over 
them, and pronounced them blessed, and said that "of such is 
the kingdom of God "? (Luke xviii. 16.) 

2. We see, in the baptism of infants, that they are depraved 
beings. Evangelical Christians have always held to native as 
well as total depravity ; and this truth is clearly set forth in the 
baptism of little children. Why are they baptized for the 
remission of sins, if they have none ? — was the triumphant inter- 
rogation of Augustine to Pelagius. And the question is equally 
pertinent and unanswerable now, as then. The application 
of water in baptism denotes purification. Bat why purify that 
which is not defiled? Why apply baptismal water to those 
who are in no way the subjects of pollution? Some there are 
who call infant children "little innocents," and think them fit 
subjects of baptism because they are innocent. But if they are 
innocent, they need no spiritual cleansing, no purification ; and 
why should the symbol of purification be applied to them ? 

3. The baptism of infants, like that of adults, sets forth the 
cleansing of the soul from siu, by "the washing of regenera- 
tion, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." This ordinance does 
not indeed import that all those to whom it is applied are re- 
generated in heart, more than circumcision imported that all 
who received that were circumcised in heart ; but it does import 
that there is cleansing for them in the gospel, and that this is 
to be effected through the special operations of the Holy Spirit. 
"Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins" (Acts xxii. 
16). " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall 
be clean" (Ezek. xxxvi. 25). Whenever we see a little child 
baptized, we have a striking illustration of the glorious truth 
that, although we are " estrauged from the womb," polluted 
from our birth, still there is cleansing for us in the gospel. 
There is " the blood of sprinkling, which speaketh better things 
than the blood of Abel." There is an Almighty Spirit, by the 
shedding forth of whose influences the darkened mind may be 
enlightened, the stubborn will bowed, the depraved heart puri- 
fied, and the whole soul transformed into a meetness for heaven. 

4. Infant baptism is a significant token of discipleship, affixed 



IMPORT, DESIGN, AND USES OF INFANT BAPTISM. 703 

to those who are early consecrated to Christ, and pledged to 
him as his future followers. All societies need some mark of 
distinction, by which the members shall be known to each other 
and to the world. This mark or sign should be public, un- 
equivocal, solemn, significant, established by authority, and 
acknowledged by all the members. Now, the sign of disciple- 
ship in the school of Christ is baptism, and our gracious Master 
has provided that it shall be given not only to his actual fol- 
lowers, but to their children. He has required that the children 
of his people should be brought to him for his blessing, com- 
mitted to his instruction, and pledged and devoted to his care 
and service, and that the token of discipleship should be placed 
upon them. In this view, what an interesting spectacle is the 
baptism of a little child ! A young immortal, just placed in 
the hands of its earthly guardians, is publicly resigned back to 
the guardianship of Christ ; and he is represented as taking it 
into a covenant relation to himself, and fixing upon it the token 
of his faithfulness and love. 

Having thus contemplated infant baptism as a sign, and 
glanced at some of the great truths which it is fitted to teach 
aud impress, let us next consider it as a seal. 

A seal implies the existence of a compact or covenant, and 
serves to ratify or bind such covenant. In the case of an adult, 
baptism is the seal of a covenant between God and the person 
receiving it. It seals to him the divine promises of pardon and 
salvation, and seals his engagements to be the Lord's. 

In the case of an infant, baptism does not seal a covenant 
between God and the infant ; for an infant is incapable of per- 
sonally entering into covenant, or of engaging in any covenant 
transaction. But baptism in this case is the seal of a covenant 
between God and the parent respecting the child. If we look 
into the Bible, we shall find this covenant in both parts of it — 
its promises and its requisitions. It is, in fact, no other than 
the covenant of the church, — the covenant with Abraham. God 
promises Abraham in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis, "I will 
establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after 
thee, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." TTe 
find similar promises in other parts of the Bible. "I will pour 



704 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring" 
(Is. xliv. 3). "They are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, 
and their offspring with them'' (Is. Ixv. 23). "The promise is 
to yon, and to your children " (Acts ii. 39). It is indubitable, 
from passages such as these, that the promises of the covenant 
extend to the children of believers. They extend to them as 
truly as to their parents. God promises to be the God of the 
one as really as of the other. 

It will be observed, however, that these are covenant prom- 
ises, and are connected with requirements to be fulfilled on the 
other part. There are requirements for the believer to fulfil in 
respect to himself, or he is entitled to no promise on his own 
behalf. So there are requirements for him to fulfil in respect 
to his children, or he can plead no promise for them. " Walk 
before me, and be thou perfect, .... and I will establish my 
covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be a 
God to thee, and to thy seed after thee." "I know Abraham, 
that he will command his children, and his household after him, 
and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and 
judgment" (Gen. xviii. 19). "Know, therefore, that the Lord 
thy God is a faithful God, keeping covenant and mercy to'them 
that love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand gen- 
erations " (Deut. vii. 9). "When thou shalt return unto the 
Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice, according to all that I 
command thee this day, the Lord thy God shall circumcise thine 
heart, and the heart of thy seed" (Deut. xxx. 6). "He estab- 
lished a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, 
which he commanded our fathers that they should make them 
known unto their children, .... that they might set their 
hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his 
commandments" (Ps. Ixxviii. 5). "The mercy of the Lord is 
from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his 
righteousness unto children's children, to such as keep his cov- 
enant, and to those that remember his commandments to do 
them" (Ps. ciii. 17). "The generation of the upright shall be 
blessed" (Ps. cxii. 2). "The just man walketh in his integrity, 
and his children are blessed after him" (Prov. xx. 7). "Train 



IMPORT, DESIGN, AND USES OF INFANT BAPTISM. 705 

up a child in the way he should go : and when he is old, he will 
not depart from it" (Prov. xxii. 6). 

From these passages, out of the many which might be quoted, 
the import of the covenant may be gathered. God promises to 
be the God of believers, if they will bo faithful to themselves ; 
and he promises to be the God of their children, if they will be 
faithful to them. If they will walk before him and be perfect, 
he promises to establish his covenant with them, to be a God to 
them and to their seed. If they will command their children 
and their households after them, he promises that they shall 
keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment. If they 
and their posterity will continue in his love, he promises that 
his mercy shall descend, from parent to child, to a thousand 
generations. If they will return unto the Lord, and obey his 
voice according to all that he commands them, he promises to 
circumcise the heart of their seed, that they may love him with 
all the heart. If they will make known unto their children the 
praises of the Lord, and his strength, and the wonderful works 
that he has done, he promises that they shall set their hope in 
God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his command- 
ments.- If they will keep his covenant, and remember his com- 
mandments to do them, he promises that his righteousness shall 
descend to children's children. If they will sustain consist- 
ently the character of the upright, their generation shall be 
blessed. If they will be just, and walk in their integrity, their 
children shall be blessed after them. If they will train them up 
in the way they should go, when they are old they will not de- 
part from it. Or, to sum up these various, multiform scriptural 
representations, if covenanting parents will be faithful to their 
children, and train them up in the nurture and 'admonition of 
the Lord, he promises to bestow upon them converting grace, 
and to be their God and portion in this world and forever. 

Such is the obvious meaning of the covenant of the church, 
in its bearing upon children ; — a meaning, not put upon it for 
the purpose of sustaining a favorite hypothesis, but shining out 
from all the Scriptures relating to the subject. When the be- 
lieving parent enters into this covenant, he engages to be faith- 



706 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ful to his children, and he seals the bond,*the engagement, in 
their baptism. 

Such, then, is the import of infant baptism, as a seal. It is 
the seal of a covenant between God and the parent. It is a vis- 
ible confirmation of the covenant by both the parties concerned 
in it. God virtually and most graciously addresses the parent in 
this transaction, and says: "I will be a God to your child, if 
you will be faithful to it." And the parent virtually responds : 
"I engage to be faithful to the child. I here publicly give it up 
to thee, and promise to train it up for thee." 

From the view here taken the relation of the baptized child 
to the church is very obvious. It is not indeed, at present, an 
actual church member. Still, it holds an important relation to 
the church — an important place in its covenant. Both the 
requisitions and promises of the covenant have respect to it. 
The parent consecrates the child to Christ, and promises to 
train it up for Christ, according to the tenor of the covenant. 
And God condescends to say: "This do, and your child is 
secured to Christ and his church forever." The child, there- 
fore, though not yet an actual member, belongs to the church 
by promise. It is promised to the church ; and the promise, 
unless annulled by parental unfaithfulness, will sooner or later 
be fulfilled. 

It may be asked here, whether the covenant of the church, in 
its relation to children, demands entire fidelity of the parent; 
whether it is broken by every instance of improper treatment, 
— by every failure in point of duty? In reply we would ask, 
Does not God demand entire fidelity in all his covenant deal- 
ings with men? In what covenant % that he has ever made with 
them, has he left them at liberty to sin? Could Abraham fall 
into sin, and not violate that covenant in which it was said, 
"Walk before me, and be thou perfect?" Whenever the chil- 
dren of Israel fell into sin, were they not charged with violating 
covenant engagements? And is it not an aggravation of the 
sins of God's people now, that they are offences not only against 
the law of God, but against his covenant? 

It is one thing, however, to come short of the entire requisi- 
tions of a covenant, and quite another, so to break it, and trifle 



IMPORT, DESIGN, AND USES OF INFANT BAPTISM. 707 

with it, as to lose all interest in its promised blessings. The 
former is often done by the professed people of God ; the latter, 
it may be hoped, is of rare occurrence. It cannot be supposed 
that Abraham was entirely perfect with his children, — that he 
performed all his duty towards them. Yet he obtained a prom- 
ise for them : "They shall keep the way of the Lord to do jus- 
tice and judgment." The Israelites often failed of fulfilling the 
demands of God's covenant with them ; yet it was long before 
they lost all interest in the covenant, and were finally rejected. 
And so it is with believers under the gospel. They are not per- 
fect. They are often chargeable with sin. Still, they do not, 
with every sin, lose all interest in the covenant of grace. If 
they "repent of their sins, and turn to God, and do works meet 
for repentance," he graciously returns to them, and permits 
them to confide in his love. 

Without doubt, the covenant into which the believing parent 
enters, respecting his children, requires him to be faithful to 
them. It can require no less. Neither is it likely that any 
parent, in this life, comes up to the full import of this requisi- 
tion. The most watchful parent often sins, and fails of doing 
his whole duty to his children. Still, he may not so fail and 
trifle with the obligations of the covenant as to forfeit all in- 
terest in its blessings. If he is sensible of his failures, and 
mourns over them, and strives not to repeat them, and returns 
with new zeal to the performance of duty, God will not forsake 
him, or cut him off from his interest in the promises. The 
whole history of God's covenant dealing with men forbids such 
a supposition. 

The covenanting parent, having once failed, may not be able 
to demand the entire fulfilment of the prcnnises ; but he may 
reasonably pray for their fulfilment, and hope for it ; and this 
hope will be the stronger, in proportion to the degree of his 
penitence and humility, the earnestness of his prayers, and his 
future diligence in the performance of duty. 

Perhaps it may be thought that, in the foregoing statements, 
we represent the salvation of children as depending rather on 
their parents than themselves. But this is not true, — at least, 
in any objectionable sense. The piety of children, we do sup- 



708 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

pose, is connected in covenant with parental fidelity; bijt then, 
when they come to exercise it, to experience it, it is their own 
piety. And they are rewarded according to their own works. 
So the final impenitence and ruin of children are connected, in 
many ways, with the wickedness of parents. Still, the impeni- 
tence of such children is their own ; and they are punished for 
their own sins. 

The principles which have been established furnish ground 
for several important conclusions. 

1. The baptism of children is most wisely adapted to secure 
their religious education and consequent conversion. This is, 
in fact, the great object and end of infant baptism ; and the 
rite, as it has been explained, is fitted, obviously, in the best 
manner to secure it. 

It does' this, by reminding covenanting parents of their duty 
to their children. Every time they look upon them, and behold 
the seal of God upon their foreheads, they are reminded of the 
engagements into which they have entered, and the duties which 
they have covenanted to perform. 

Infant baptism also furnishes new and increased motives to 
parents, to strengthen them in the performance of their duty: 
In this respect, it is very like to a public profession of religion. 
A public profession imposes no new duties. The same religious 
duties, in the general, are binding on all men, whether they 
make a profession or not. But a profession furnishes new in- 
ducements to the performance of duty, t and new strength with 
which to resist the many temptations to neglect it. So infant 
baptism imposes no new duties. All parents are bound to be 
faithful to their children, whether they baptize them or not. 
But by a public recognition of parental duties, and a solemn, 
sealed engagement to perform them, infant baptism greatly in- 
creases the motives to their performance, and furnishes addi- 
tional security that they will not be neglected. 

Then the promises of the covenant will be a great encourage- 
ment to parents, in the responsible work of training up their 
children. As the believing parent looks upon his beloved off- 
spring, with an ever-watchful anxiety for their spiritual good, 
how it will encourage and comfort him, that he may regard 



IMPOKT, DESIGN, AND USES OF INFANT BAPTISM. 709 

them already as the subjects of promise, and may humbly plead 
the provisions of God's gracious covenant on their behalf. 

2. There is a propriety in administering baptism, not only to 
the natural children of believing parents, but to such as have 
been adopted by them, and with whose training and instruction 
they are entrusted. Infant baptism, we have seen, is the seal 
of a covenant between God and the parent, respecting his child. 
The covenant engagement of the parent is, in substance, this : 
" I will train up this child in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord." It is plain that the parent may enter into such an en- 
gagement respecting his own children ; and it is equally plain 
that he may enter into a like engagement, in respect to any 
child or children whom he has adopted, or with whose educa- 
tion he is entrusted. With the utmost propriety, therefore, he 
may present such child or children before God, and say : "Here 
are the little ones whom thou, in thy righteous providence, hast 
committed to my care. I desire to yield them up to thee, and 
promise to train them up for thee. I desire to seal this promise 
in their baptism, and thus take hold of thy gracious covenant 
on their behalf." 

3. It may be inferred, from the principles which have been 
established, that children are not entitled to baptism on their 
parents' account, after they have passed the period of their 
minority, or have passed from under the parental roof. As 
parents cannot with propriety engage to train up their children 
for God, when they are already trained up, or when their train- 
ing has passed over to other hands, so they cannot with propriety 
apply to them the seal of such an engagement. The period 
when children cease to be entitled to baptism on the account of 
their parents, is when they pass from under the control of their 
parents, and are no longer subject to their authority and care. 

4. It appears, from all that has been said, that infant baptism 
is no unmeaning ceremony, but a solemn, significant, and im- 
portant ordinance of the church. Those who reject this ordi- 
nance usually think and speak of it as a thing of no value. "It 
is a cause that produces no effect ; a means connected with no 
end ; a cloud that affords no rain ; a tree that yields no fruit." 

But in view of all that has been said, we must be allowed to 



710 CHKISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ask. Is this true? Is infant baptism of no benefit as a sign? 
Is it not clearly significant of some of the most important spir- 
itual truths ? Where can we so plainly read that we are mor- 
ally polluted beings from our birth ; that we need cleansing ; 
and that there is cleansing for us in the gospel ? And is it of 
no benefit to the church and the world that Christ has appointed 
a standing symbol, an ordinance, in which these and the kin- 
dred truths of salvation are shadowed forth? Was it no bene- 
fit to the church, in the days of Pelagius, that she could appeal 
triumphantly to infant baptism in opposition to the errors which 
then prevailed? Is it of no advantage to the church, in these 
days, that she still retains the same argument? 

But infant baptism is full of meaning and interest, not only 
as a sign, but as a seal. It is the seal of a solemn covenant 
between God and the parent. It binds the parent, by every- 
thing sacred, to be mindful of the spiritual interests of his chil- 
dren, and to do all in his power to train them up for heaven, 
and seals the consequent gracious promise that God will be their 
portion forever. And now is not a covenant so framed and 
sealed calculated to have an important influence? Will not 
those parents who have sincerely entered into it be more likely 
(other things being equal) to engage with persevering diligence 
in the important work of religious education, than those who 
have made no such engagements ? And will not God remember 
his covenant, and bless their labors, and cause the fruits of them 
to appear? 

I am far from considering infant baptism as a saving ordi- 
nance, or from attaching to it any mysterious efficacy in the con- 
cern of salvation ; but if it stands connected with the religious 
education of children, and brings them within the scope of the 
promises, in the manner we have seen, then baptized children 
may be expected to enjoy privileges beyond others, and will be 
more likely to become objects of the divine favor and blessing. 
And this view of the case, I am confident, is justified by facts. 
The church has been, in great measure, perpetuated in the line 
of children wdio have been religiously educated, and chiefly 
from among those'who have been circumcised or baptized. A 
large proportion of those who are converted and gathered into 



IMPORT, DESIGX, AXD USES OF IXFAXT BAPTISM. 711 

the churches in our own times are from among this class ; and 
so it has been in all former periods. And when we consider 
the import of infant baptism, the promises sealed by it, and the 
influence which it ought to have on those who practise it, there 
is nothing strange in all this. The wonder rather is that the 
value of the rite in question has not been more manifest, and 
that the faithfulness of God in respect to it has not been more 
signally, illustriously displayed. 

The subject of this Lecture is one of great interest to minis- 
ters and to the churches at all times, — and very specially at 
the present time. We are expecting great things of the rising 
generation. We are expecting a vast accession to our churches, 
to be taken chiefly from those now in the morning of life. It is 
high time, then, that the relation of baptized children to the 
church should be accurately understood, and the duties growing 
out of it faithfully performed. It is time that the hearts of the 
fathers were turned to the children, and that the hearts of al 
professing Christians were engaged together to seek the salva- 
tion of the young ; that when those now upon the stage of life 
are summoned to leave it, a generation may rise up, to stand 
in their lot,- to enter into their labors, and carry these labors 
forward to a glorious consummation. 



12 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUKE LXVI. 

CLOSE COMMUNION. 

Those Christians who reject infant baptism, and insist on the 
exclusive validity of immersion in baptism, have, for the most 
part, confined their communion to persons of their own persua- 
sion, considering other Christians as unbaptized. Their prac- 
tice, in this respect, has been termed close or strict communion ; 
while the opposite practice is called free, open, or mixed com- 
munion. 1 propose, in this Lecture, to offer some considera- 
tions in opposition to <;lose communion. 

Let me premise, however, that I entirely agree with the 
strict or Calvinistic Baptists in the sentiment, that none but 
professed believers in Christ, — those who give credible evi- 
dence of piety, are entitled to communion at the sacred supper. 

Those only who give evidence of being the children of God 
arc entitled to a seat at their Father's table. Those only who 
are prepared to enjoy real, spiritual communion with Christ and 
his people are entitled to receive the emblems of such commun- 
ion. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the com- 
munion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break is 
it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. x. 16.) 

But while we are thus confident in the persuasion, that the 
sacrament of the supper is the exclusive property of those who 
give evidence of having been born of God, we are equally con- 
fident that it belongs to all of this character ; and that to with- 
hold it, as many do, on the ground of unessential differences of 
opinion, from multitudes whom they acknowledge to be true 
Christians, is a proceeding which (however kind and pure may 
be their intentions) they are wholly unable to justify. 

1. The practice of close communion is contrary to the very 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 713 

genius and spirit of the gospel. Nothing is more certain, from 
the gospel, than that the church of Christ is one body, and his 
body. " As we have many members in one body, and all mem- 
bers have not the same office, so we, being many, are one body 
in Christ, and every one members one of another" (Eom. xii. 
4, 5). To divide the church of Christ, therefore, is to divide 
his body. To separate a portion of the acknowledged mem- 
bers of his church, and refuse to hold communion with them, 
is, as Mr. Baxter expresses it, " to separate the different mem- 
bers of Christ's body, to tear his flesh, and break his bones." 

Again : the gospel divides the human family into two general 
classes, — believers and unbelievers, saints and sinners ; and to 
those of the former class — all who give evidence of being in 
the number of pod's children — it uniformly appropriates the 
privileges of children. These are members of his family, and 
entitled, as such, to the provisions of his house. Hence, to 
make a separation between persons of this character, and ex- 
clude a part of them from the table of the Lord, is a proceed- 
ing not only foreign from the gospel, but manifestly contrary to 
the very genius and spirit of it. 

It is evidently the desire and prayer of Christ that his fol- 
lowers may be one. "Neither pray I for these alone, but for 
them also which shall believe on me through their word, that 
they all may be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, 
that they also may be one in us" (John xvii. 20, 21). But 
how shall this most important object — the unity and fellowship 
of all true believers in Christ — be best promoted ? By drawing 
lines of separation between them, on the ground of unessential 
differences, and excluding a part of them from their Master's 
table ? Or, by bearing with one another's mistakes and infirm- 
ities, in things not essential to Christian character, and receiving 
one another, even as Christ has received them ? 

In every view which can be taken of this subject, I am con- 
strained to regard what is commonly called close communion as 
contrary to the very genius and spirit of the gospel. And 
hence it is, that when religion is revived in a community, and 
Christians of different denominations are accustomed to meet 
and pray together, till their love is enkindled and their hearts 

90 



714 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

are warmed, the attachment of any among them to close com- 
munion almost uniformly diminishes. The hearts of those who 
had previously practised it are often pained, and not a few in- 
dignantly reject it. So often have facts of this nature been 
witnessed and reported, that there can be no mistake in regard 
to them. 

2. The practice of close communion agrees not with the 
teachings and practice of the apostles. There were differences 
of opinion in the apostolical churches, and some of them of as 
great importance as those now agitated respecting baptism. 
Such, for example, was the question of circumcision, and of 
observing the rites of the Jewish law. Yet neither party, in 
these old disputes, was tolerated in excluding or denouncing 
the other. So far from t^iis, they were expressly exhorted to 
receive one another, on the ground that both were supposed to 
belong to Christ. "Wherefore, receive ye one another, as 
Christ also received us, to the glory of God" (Eom. xv. 7). 

Perhaps it will be said that the apostle is here speaking of 
things indifferent, — things not to be compared with the modern 
questions respecting baptism. But what are we to understand 
by things indifferent? Not things of no importance, or about 
which the apostle had formed no opinion ; but things which he 
regarded as unessential to Christian character and final salva- 
tion, — as the questions about baptism confessedly are. Paul 
certainly had formed an opinion respecting the matters above 
referred to, and he did consider them as of very considerable 
importance, — important enough frequently to occupy his 
thoughts and his pen ; but, as he did not think them essential 
to Christian character, he was very decided in affirming that 
they ought to be no bar in the way of Christian fellowship and 
communion. The example of Paul, therefore, in this matter 
(and the same course was pursued in all the apostolic churches) 
is decidedly averse to the principle of close communion, and is 
a reproof to all those who encourage or practise it. 

3. The practice of close communion is contrary to that of the 
church, in the ages succeeding the apostles, and in every age, 
almost to our own times. There were other differences of 
opinion among the early Christians, besides those referred to 



CLOSE COMMUXIOX. 715 

under the last head ; but they were not suffered to interfere 
with the communion of the church, or to break its unity. Such 
was the dispute about the time and manner of celebrating Eas- 
ter, in the second century. This may be deemed a trilling 
matter by Christians of the present day ; but in the times of 
which we speak it was a question of high interest and impor- 
tance. And when Victor, one of the bishops of Rome, under- 
took to excommunicate his Eastern brethren, because they 
would not yield to his opinion on the subject, he was rebuked 
for so unchristian a procedure, and obliged to retrace his steps. 
Says Irenreus, in a letter to him : "The presbyters who before 
ruled the church which 3^011 now govern, neither observed them- 
selves, nor permitted their people to observe, the day which is 
kept by the Asiatic Christians; nevertheless, they maintained 
peace with those presbyters who did observe it, and never were 
any, on account of this diversity, shut out of the church, but 
the presbyters who preceded you, and did not keep the same 
day with the Asiatics, sent the eucharist to those who did. 
And when blessed Poly carp went from Smyrna to Rome, in the 
time of your predecessor Anicetus, with a view to adjust this 
matter, they dropped it for the sake of peace, and held com- 
munion with each other. And in the church, out of pure re- 
spect, Anicetus yielded to Polycarp the dispensation of the 
eucharist ; and they amicably separated from each other, and 
the peace of the whole church was preserved." 1 

Another dispute with which the primitive church was agitated 
related to the validity of certain baptisms, and was not alto- 
gether unlike the modern questions touching the same subject. 
Many doubted concerning the baptism administered by heretics, 
and whether it was proper to receive persons so baptized into 
the church without a repetition of the ordinance. But neither 
was this matter, except for a short time, permitted to interrupt 
the fellowship of the church. "Many things," says an excellent 
Christian, in a letter to Cyprian, "many things vary according 
to the diversity of place and people ; but, nevertheless, these 
variations have at no time infringed the peace and unity of the 
Catholic church." 2 

1 Eusebius' Ecc. Hist. : Book vi., chap. 24. 2 Cypriani Opera : Part ii., p. 210. 



716 CHEISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

There were differences of opinion among the primitive Chris- 
tians in regard to the subject of church government. Originally 
the churches were governed by presbyters, the words presbyter 
and bishop designating the same office. But in the course of 
two centuries, Episcopal government was introduced, and the 
primitive order of things was changed. Yet, these changes, 
and the discussions necessarily growing out of them, did not 
produce separate communions. * Those who were the most 
strenuously opposed to the prevailing innovations were entirely 
averse, as Jerome informs us, to "cutting asunder the harmony 
of brotherly union." 

Our Baptist brethren believe that in the times of the apostles 
infant baptism was unknown ; but that in a few centuries it was 
introduced, prevailed, and became universal, so that in the age 
of Augustine, the learned and acute Pelagius was constrained 
to declare that he had "never heard of any, not even the most 
impious heretic, who denied baptism to infants." It is natural 
to suppose that so great an innovation (if innovation it be) 
must have led to differences of opinion and disputes ; and now 
w T e ask — not for the evidence of such disputes — but for evidence 
that those disputes, if they ever existed, were suffered to break 
the unity of the church. Where were the churches which, on 
account of this alleged innovation, withdrew from their breth- 
ren and refused to have communion with them at the table of 
the Lord? Suffice it to say, that we have no trace of any such 
churches in ancient times, and no reason to believe that any 
existed. And this fact, if there were no other, ought to satisfy 
the abettors of close communion that they have departed from 
the example of the primitive Christians. 

It is claimed, too, by our Baptist brethren that there were 
many of their sentiments previous to the reformation from 
Popery, but that they mingled promiscuously with other pious 
dissenters, and were closely concealed from the eyes of their 
persecutors. Thus, Benedict says : "Before the rise of Luther 
and Calvin, there lay concealed in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzer- 
land, and Germany, many pious persons, who adhered tena- 
ciously to the doctrine of the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and 
Hussites. These concealed Christians," he adds, "were mostly 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 717 

Baptists." And Crosby says that, previous to the year 1633, the 
Baptists in England "had been intermixed with other Protestant 
dissenters without distinction, and shared with the Puritans in 
the persecutions of the times." 1 Here are express admissions, 
on the part of learned Baptist historians, that before the Refor- 
mation, and after it, their brethren were "intermixed, without 
distinction, with other dissenters," and of course that close 
communion was unknown. 

4. The practice of close communion necessarily leads those 
who adopt it into various palpable inconsistencies. It would 
seem, from their principles, that what are commonly called Pedo- 
baptist churches are not, in any proper sense, churches of Christ. 
Baptism, we are told, is "the divinely appointed mode of en- 
trance into the visible church ; " and Pedobaptists have not been 
baptized. Of course they have not so much as entered the visi- 
ble church ; and hence their religious societies cannot, with any 
propriety, be denominated churches. If the premises are admit- 
ted, the conclusion would seem to be inevitable. And yet, 
close communionists generally profess to regard the Pedobaptist 
churches as churches of Christ, and their ministers as ministers 
of Christ. The ministers of the two denominations associate 
freely in religious meetings, ecclesiastical councils, an exchange 
of pulpits, and in various other ways. 

But then, if the Pedobaptist churches are churches of Christ, 
why not commune with them as such ? and why not admit their 
members to at least occasional communion ? Why present the 
strange anomaly of acknowledged church members, who cannot 
be received to one of the ordinances of the church, and of those 
who are admitted to fellowship in any other mode, as members 
of Christ's church and ministers of his kingdom, who are not 
admitted to a seat at his table ? 

The advocates of close communion are willing to admit that 
Pedobaptists, or many of them, are real Christians, — the very 
salt of the earth. But if they are real Christians, they are in 
the number of God's children, and have a right to come to 
their Father's table. If they are real Christians, they have 
spiritual communion with Christ and his people, and ought to 

i See Benedict's Hist, of Baptists, Vol. I., pp. 138, 197. 



718 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

be permitted to have visible communion. God communes with 
them, if they are real Christians; and why should any of the 
professed people of God be more strict in their communion than 
he is? If Pedobaptists are real Christians, they are among 
those who feed upon Christ by faith ; and why are they not per- 
mitted to feed upon the appointed emblems of his body and 
blood? They are partakers, really and spiritually, and wiry 
should they not be sacrameutally ? If Pedobaptists are real 
Christians, they are heirs of heaven, and will shortly be received 
to heaven ; and why should it be made more difficult to obtain a 
seat at certain communion tables here on earth than at the mar- 
riage supper of the Lamb in heaven ? Why should the Lord's 
table be barred against the approach of those to whom the gate 
of heaven is open ? 

The advocates of close communion are not a little embarrassed 
with the question, whether it is right for Pedobaptists to celebrate 
the Lord's supper by themselves. As this ordinance is one of 
the positive institutions of Christ, it must be the same every- 
where ; so that if it is right for Pedobaptists to celebrate it in 
one place, it must be right in another ; or, if it is wrong in one 
place, it is wrong (other things being equal) in another. Hence, 
if it is wrong for them to celebrate the supper in connection 
with Baptists, it is no less a profanation of the ordinance for them 
to celebrate it by themselves. Accordingly, when pressed with 
the argument in this direction, our brethren sometimes speak out, 
and declare it to be "a departure from the traditions of the 
apostles, and a pouring contempt on one of the positive institu- 
tions of Christ," for us to come to the communion in the manner 
we do. 1 Yet, on the other hand, they appear to manifest no great 
uneasiness at the continuance of this alleged profanation, will 
consent to preach our sacramental lectures, and by their conduct 
seem to say, that if we will only keep away from them and 
celebrate the ordinance by ourselves, they are satisfied. 

It affords me no pleasure to urge these inconsistencies upon 
my brethren of the strict communion ; but as their practice 
necessarily involves them, and many more, it is important that. 

1 See Andrews' Strictures, p. 40. 



CLOSE COMMUNION". 719 

they should be able to appreciate some of the difficulties with 
which, in the judgment of others, their system is encumbered. 
5. I object to the principles of close communion that, under 
the consistent operation of them, there will often occur cases of 
real hardship. Those who truly love the Saviour usually set 
a high value upon their seasons of sacramental communion. 
They love to sit down with their fellow-disciples at the table of 
their Lord, lean upon his breast at supper, and feed upon the 
memorials of his body and blood. But circumstances may be 
supposed, and will often occur, in which Christians may be de- 
prived of this privilege for years, — perhaps during the greater 
part of their lives, — unless they are admitted to communion in 
the Baptist churches. Here, we will suppose, is a pious, de- 
voted mother, a member of a Congregational church, whose lot is 
cast where she can have Christian intercourse only with Baptists. 
And her intercourse with them is, in general, pleasant. She 
listens to their preachers, and is instructed and edified. She 
goes with them to the prayer-meeting, and her heart is warmed. 
She cooperates with them in works of faith, and in promoting 
various objects of Christian benevolence. Her affections min- 
gle with theirs, and theirs with hers, and they are* spiritually of 
one heart and soul. But when the table of the Lord is spread, 
and she asks permission to come and partake, she is grieved to 
find herself excluded. " And why," she asks, " am I excluded? 
Do I not give you satisfactory evidence of being a child of God, 
— of being one with you in spirit, — of being one with whom 
the Saviour communes ? And why can I not have communion 
with you ? " " Why, dear sister," it is replied, " you have not been 
baptized." "But I have been baptized," she rejoins. "I have 
given myself up to God in baptism, according to his appoint- 
ment, and in that manner which I think most agreeable to his 
will." "Ah, but you are mistaken on that subject; Ave know 
you are ; you must renounce your pretended baptism, and go 
with us into the water, and then we can receive you." "Ke- 
nounce my baptism ! " she exclaims ; " I can never do that. It 
was the most sacred action of my life. I might almost as well 
renounce my Saviour." " Well, sister, we are sorry for you ; 
but unless you can comply with our terms, we cannot receive 



720 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

you." And so this child of God, because she will not do vio- 
lence to her conscience, and renounce what she deems the most 
sacred act of her life, is driven away from her Father's table; 
and this, too, when it is known that she can have communion 
with no other church, but must pass her life, and perhaps end 
her days, and never more have the privilege of coming to the 
sacramental board. And is there no hardship in all this? Is 
there nothing revolting to the pious heart? 

The operation of the principles of close communion is often 
as painful to those who exclude, as to those who are excluded. 
A brother in the ministry, who had acted upon these principles, 
and had excluded a pious female under circumstances not very 
unlike those detailed above, thus writes : " She put her kerchief 
to her eyes, and turned away, struggling with' anguish, and the 
tears streaming down her face. And oh, how did my heart 
smite me ! I went home exclaiming to myself, Can this be right J 
Is it possible that such is the law of the Eedeemer's house ? " It 
is needless to add, that this ministerial brother is a close com- 
munionist no longer. 

But these principles of close communion operate hardly in 
another way. It is a fact that no inconsiderable proportion of 
the members of our Baptist churches are opposed to close com- 
munion ; their consciences are pained with it ; and their souls 
are in bondage on account of it. Kobert Hall says : " It fre- 
quently happens, that the constitution of a church continues to 
sanction strict communion, while the sentiments of a vast ma- 
jority of its members are decidedly in favor of a contrary sys- 
tem." In another place, he expresses the opinion, that a major- 
ity of the present Baptists are in favor of open communion. 1 
A Baptist minister of our own country also says : " It is not 
known by the close-communion Baptists how many there are 
of their own denomination who believe, in their hearts, in open 
communion. I was surprised, after divulging my sentiments, 
to find so many who entertained the same belief, — some of 
them for years." 2 

This testimony is in accordance with my own observation. I 
have known not a few persons — members of Baptist churches — 

i Works, Vol. I., pp. 369, 401. 2 Brooks' Essay, p. 22. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 721 

who freely acknowledged that they were not satisfied with close 
communion, that they believed it unscriptural, and that they 
would abandon it at once, were it not for displeasing some of 
their brethren. But is it no hardship for a Christian to live in 
this way, — habitually trifling with his conscience, and conniving 
at that which he thinks is wrong, from a fear of giving offence to 
his brethren? Is such a state of mind favorable to Christian 
enjoyment? Is this the liberty wherewith Christ makes his 
people free? 

6. I object to the practice of close communion, that it is up- 
held and continued, in part at least, from sectarian motives. I 
should not feel warranted in making this assertion, however 
clearly facts might seem to justify it, were it not that the truth 
of it is acknowledged. But Mr. Fuller, in his "Conversations 
on Mixed and Strict Communion" (pp. 24, 25), says: "The 
tendency of mixed communion is to annihilate, as such, all the 
Baptist churches in Christendom." And he asks : "Do you wish 
to promote the dissolution and ruin of the Baptist denomina- 
tion, as such? If you do not, take heed to your ways." Thus 
close communion is confessedly to be retained, because its exist- 
ence is deemed necessary to the continuance of a sect. One of 
the lines of separation between the members of Christ's mysti- 
cal body would be gradually worn out and disappear, were it 
not for close communion ; and therefore the practice must be vig- 
orously maintained. In reply, I would only say, that the time 
has come when Christians should think less about their " denom- 
inations, as such," and more about the general interests of truth 
and of the kingdom of Christ. And it is objection enough to 
any practice in the church that it requires to be sustained by 
promoting a sectarian spirit. 

7. We object, finally, to close communion, that it is opposed 
to the spirit of the age, and operates in various ways to retard 
the progress of Christ's kingdom. The age in which we live is 
one of peculiar interest. The Christian world is awaking from 
its slumbers to unwonted efforts ; and Satan is coming out in 
great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time. The people 
of God are beginning to associate, and pray, and operate together, 
and the enemies of truth and righteousness are combining their 

91 



722 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

efforts to oppose them. On every hand, lines are drawing and 
sides are taking, preparatory to the conflict of the last days. 
The aspects of the times obviously demand the utmost practi- 
cable union among Christians, and that everything tending to 
obstruct this union should be taken out of the way. One of the 
obstructions, unquestionably, is close communion. This tends, 
as we have seen, to break the unity of the church ; to interrupt 
the flow of Christian charity ; to impair and hinder the exercise 
of love. It insulates and weakens the efforts of those who ought 
to live together as brethren, and go hand in hand in their appro- 
priate work. It leads those often to waste their strength upon 
each other, whose united strength ought to be directed against a 
common enemy. It causes those to interfere and contend with 
each other, between whom there should be no strife, except who 
shall be most fervent in love and most zealous in efforts for pro- 
moting the Redeemer's kingdom. An incalculable amount of 
time, labor, and money, which is now expended for sectarian 
purposes, might be directed to the comtnon interests of Christ- 
ianity were it not for close communion. In how many places in 
these United States, where there are now two or three societies, 
all feeble, struggling for existence, and aided perhaps by public 
charity, might there be one strong, efficient society, able to sup- 
port itself and to assist others, if those who regard each other 
as real Christians could only consent to commune together at 
the table of the Lord ? In how many places Vhere there are 
now two or three ministers, — mutually jealous, and standing 
in each other's way, — might there be but one, leaving the others 
to go to more distant fields, were it not for the same cause? 

We earnestly commend this subject to the consideration of 
our brethren of the close communion, and would seriously in- 
quire of them whether it is not time, and more than time, that 
this manifest obstruction to Christian union, and the progress of 
Christ's kingdom in the world, was removed, to be heard of no 
more. The obvious tendency of things at the present day is to 
remove it ; and we cannot doubt, if the cause of truth and right- 
eousness continues to prosper, that ere long it will be taken out 
of the way. 

But how ? How shall this most desirable object be accom- 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 723 

plishecl ? This is a very important question ; and with a few 
suggestions in regard to it, we close. 

The grand difficulty in the way of open communion, as was 
remarked at the commencement of the Lecture, is a difference 
of opinion respecting baptism. Oar Baptist brethren insist — 
on the ground of the apostolical commission and practice, the 
significance of the two ordinances, and the general suffrage 
of the church — that baptism is necessary, previous to commun- 
ion. They also insist that the members of our churches have 
not been baptized. Consequently they infer, as they think 
conclusively, that these members cannot with propriety be ad- 
mitted to the Lord's table. The question now is, How shall 
this objection be obviated ? How shall the difficulty be removed ? 

There is no probability that this difficulty will be soon re- 
moved by a general change of sentiment in our churches, and 
by our members becoming Baptists. There has been an ex- 
pectation of this sort among Baptists, — perhaps thefe is still; 
but we see no prospect of its speedy accomplishment. No 
such change of sentiment is to be expected. 

Besides, if the other denominations are ever to become Bap- 
tists, it is scarcely possible that the change should be effected, 
under the present system of operations. Separated, as we now 
are, in our public worship and ordinances, and under the influ- 
ence of a variety of causes tending to foment and perpetuate 
sectarian prejudices, how can it be expected that either party 
should make any considerable approaches towards the other? 
We agree entirely with Eobert Hall, that if the peculiarities of 
the Baptist denomination are true ; if they will bear the test of 
examination ; and if those who hold them are desirous to pro- 
mote them ; their past policy has been a most unhappy one, and 
it is high time that they were pursuing a more liberal course. 
Instead of holding themselves separate, and keeping their 
brethren at a distance, they should seek the fellowship of other 
denominations who agree with them in essential truth, and 
mingle with them as freely and fraternally as possible. In this 
way, they may disarm prejudice, invite a more free and candid 
discussion, and, if the truth is with them, it will be likely to 
prevail. 



724 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

"But how shall we admit you to communion," it is asked, 
" so long as we regard you as unbaptized ? " If our brethren 
are in earnest in proposing this question, we are very willing to 
confer with them on the subject. And with due deference, we 
would ask, Why may we not be admitted, at least to occasional 
communion, on the ground proposed by Kobert Hall ? If the 
baptism of John was not Christian baptism (as is now generally 
conceded) it is certain that the disciples had not received 
Christian baptism at the time of the first celebration of the 
Lord's supper. And if it be said that theirs was an extraordi- 
nary case, will it not be lawful to follow their example in ex- 
traordinary cases ? There is a natural order in which most of 
the duties incumbent on us should be attended to ; but it does 
not follow, ordinarily, because the first in a series has been 
neglected, that the remainder cannot be performed. For ex- 
ample, it is according to the established order in our churches, 
that singing should precede the principal prayer, and prayer the 
sermon ; but because a person is not present to unite in the 
singing, may he not unite in the prayer? Or, because he is not 
present to unite in the prayer, may he not listen to the sermon? 
It is Christ's direction that those who are capable of instruction 
should be taught before they are baptized. But suppose a min- 
ister of the gospel is called to baptize a believer who, he is sat- 
isfied, knows four times as much as himself; must he pause, 
and go through the formality of teaching such an one, before he 
ventures to administer the ordinance? So if, from misappre- 
hension, or any other cause not affecting his religious character, 
a sincere Christian has not received baptism, and yet desires to 
be admitted to the Lord's table, who shall say that he may not 
come ? Because he has been prevented from obeying one com- 
mand of Christ, who shall prohibit him from obeying another? 

But on this view of the subject it is not necessary to enlarge. 
The works of Mr. Hall are before the public, in which every- 
thing which need be said in support of this theory is urged with 
a surpassing eloquence. 

To the advocates of strict communion, we will venture to 
suggest another, and, we think, better way, in which the diffi- 
culties between us may be got over. Let them cease to judge 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 725 

another man's servant, and leave him to stand, or fall, to his 
own master. We who differ from them on the subject of bap- 
tism are not conscious of neglecting or trifling with the ordi- 
nance more than they. We profess to hold it in as high esti- 
mation as they do. We observe it, according to the dictates of 
our own consciences, — according, as we think, to the institution 
and will of Christ. We find great satisfaction in the ordinance, 
and believe that our Saviour approves and blesses us in it. 
And now, brethren, why can you not meet us on this ground? 
Unless you are infallible, you cannot know that we are wrong, 
any more than we know you are. And why can you not con- 
sent to say : " If you love and prize the ordinance of baptism 
as you understand it, and really think that you observe it ac- 
cording to the institution of Christ, then enjoy your own opin- 
ion. It is not within our province to judge you. We think, 
indeed, that you are mistaken ; but the mistake is yours, not 
ours ; and as it is not of a nature to prevent us from loving and 
embracing you as Christians, it shall no longer interrupt our 
Christian communion. Here, brethren, is the table of our 
common Lord. Come to it with us, if you will ; and if you 
have mistaken the nature of the previous ordinance, you must 
settle it with Christ, and not with us." 

With an invitation such as this, Pedobaptists would be per- 
fectly satisfied. If they are in error, they do not wish their 
brethren to be partakers with them in the error. If they have 
in anything mistaken the will of Christ, they choose to assume 
the responsibility themselves, and to refer the matter directly 
to him. 

But it is said, "Pedobaptists act on the same principle with 
those of the strict communion, and exclude from the Lord's 
table, under all circumstances, those whom they regard as un- 
baptized." But this is not true. We repeat the asseveration, 
and hope it may be noted and remembered, this is not true. 
Were a person to request communion with us, who professed 
to love and prize the ordinance of baptism, who sincerely 
thought that he had been baptized, and who gave evidence of 
being prepared to enjoy spiritual communion with Christ ; we 
certainly should admit him, although we might regard his bap- 



726 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

tism as a nullity. We should do it on the principle laid down 
above. 

And such cases are of not uufrequent occurrence in our 
churches. Some of our brethren consider the baptisms which 
were formerly administered on the ground of the half-way cov- 
enant as invalid ; and more have the same opinion in regard to 
the baptisms of Romau Catholics and Unitarians. But should 
a pious, godly professor of religion, who had been baptized in 
either of these ways, and was satisfied with what had been 
done, request to come to the Lord's table with us, we certainly 
should admit him, whatever opinion we might entertain con- 
cerning the validity of his baptism. If he was seriously and 
conscientiously satisfied, we should not undertake to judge be- 
twixt him and his Master, but should leave the question of his 
baptism to be determined at a higher tribunal. 

But it will be objected again: "Since we regard baptism as 
prerequisite to communion, and regard Pedobaptists as not bap- 
tized, how can we receive them to our communion, without 
becoming partakers of their sin ? " But are you sure that Pe- 
dobaptists commit sin, in coming to the Lord's table, even on 
supposition that they have misapprehended the nature of bap- 
tism? They have received what they most seriously believe to 
be Christian baptism, and feel under solemn obligations to come 
to the Lord's table in remembrance of him. And now what 
shall they do ? Can you in conscience affirm that it will be sin- 
ful for them to come? On the contrary, as they view the sub- 
ject, will it not be sinful for them to stay away ? But we need 
not argue this question, as some of the more recent and intelli- 
gent advocates of close communion have themselves decided it. 
Says Mr. Fuller : " On their own principles, Pedobaptists do 
right, in partaking of the Lord's supper, though, in our opinion, 
unbaptized ; their conviction, and not ours, being their proper 
directory." 1 Mr. Kinghorn, in his reply to Hall, takes the 
same ground. And now this is all which need be said in the 
case. If Pedobaptists were admitted to the Lord's table with 
Baptists, they would come "on their own principles," and in 
compliance with their own convictions of duty ; and conse- 

1 Conversations, etc., p. 32. 



CLOSE COMMUNION. 727 

quently, as Mr. Fuller says, they would do right, — they would 
not sin ; and their brethren, in admitting them, need be in no 
fear of becoming partakers in other men's sins. 

But say our Baptist friends further : " Should we not, by such 
a procedure, at least give countenance to what we conceive to be 
an error ? " And we answer, Not at all. It being known at 
the time that you do not coincide in opinion with your Pedobap- 
tist brother, but merely consent that he shall come to the Lord's 
table with you, — on his own principles and responsibility, 
and in compliance with his own convictions of duty, because you 
think that he belongs to Christ, — it does not appear that you 
would be yielding any sinful or dangerous countenance to what 
you believe to be his errors. The Jewish and Gentile converts 
in the days of Paul had each their own opinions respecting the 
practice of circumcision, yet they constantly communed together 
under the direction of the apostles, and no complaint was made 
or suspicion felt that either party was countenancing the other 
in error, or becoming a partaker of its sin. On no subject what- 
ever are the views of Baptists more fully understood than on 
that of baptism ; and the only inference which could justly be 
drawn from the fact of their admitting the Pedobaptist to the 
table with them would be, that they were willing to have com- 
munion with him because they believed him a follower of Christ ; 
while at the same time they deplored what they deem his errors, 
and prayed that he might be instructed in the way of the Lord 
more perfectly. And we leave it to the- consciences of our Bap- 
tist brethren to decide whether such an inference would be dis- 
graceful to them as Christians, or of dangerous consequence to 
the interests of Christ's kingdom. 

On the whole, we cannot doubt that close communion is wrong 
in principle and injurious in practice, and that the time has fully 
come when it ought to be clone away. As evangelical Chris- 
tians, Baptists and Pedobaptists, seem not likely to agree at pres- 
ent in regard to one of the special ordinances of the gospel, but 
do agree in regard to the nature and obligations of the other, 
there can be no good reason why they should not, occasionally at 
least, partake of the latter ordinance together. In this way they 
would wipe off much of the reproach which at present attaches 



728 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

to them, and manifest to the world that, notwithstanding re- 
maining differences, they do feel, and are resolved to act, as the 
disciples of a common Saviour. We know, indeed, if this point 
were gained, that much wisdom and grace would still be needed 
in order to perfect and perpetuate peace. For combustible ma- 
terials would remain on both sides, in the midst of which dis- 
cordant spirits mighty scatter their firebrands and easily blow 
them to a flame. But Christian love would overcome all diffi- 
culties, and quench the latent sparks of contention before they 
were kindled. By the removal of close communion, one source 
of contention in the church would be dried up, and one effectual 
step would be taken towards a complete and final union. The 
parties by being brought into more intimate relations would be 
in a better situation to dispose of remaining differences ; and the 
Saviour, who prayed so fervently while on earth for the peace 
of his followers, might be expected to approve, and bestow his 
blessing. 



THE lord's supper. 729 



LECTUKE LXVIL 

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

In several preceding Lectures, we have considered the subject 
of baptism, together with some important questions connected 
with it. We now turn to the other special ordinance or sacra- 
ment of the new dispensation, — the Lord's Supper. 

This ordinance was instituted by the Saviour, during the last 
Passover, — the same evening in which he was betrayed, — the 
evening before his crucifixion. His disciples having made ready 
for the Passover, "when the even was come, he sat down with 
the twelve." "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and 
blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, 
Take, eat, this my body. And he took the cup and gave 
thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for 
this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many 
for the remission of sins" (Matt. xxvi. 26-28). 

The narrative of this transaction, which is given in nearly the 
same words by three of the evangelists, and again many years 
afterwards by the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. xi. 23), teaches us, 
first of all, that what was now done was no part of the ordinary 
celebration of the Passover. It was something superadded to 
the Passover, or aside from it, — a change which no being but 
the Lord of the Passover had any authority to make. It was, 
in fact, a new institution. 

And as this new institution came up, during the celebration 
of the Passover, it is further evident that it was designed to 
take its place. It was to be, in many respects, to the church 
under the new dispensation, what the Passover had been to the 
church under the old. 

The institution carried on the face of it that its Author was 

92 



730 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

about to die by the hand of violence, and that the sacred supper 
was to be a standing memorial of his death. "This do, in re- 
membrance of me. For as oft as you eat this bread, and drink 
this cup, ye do show the Lord's death, till he come" (1 Cor. 
xi. 26). 

The ordinance thus instituted was evidently designed to be 
perpetuated in the church. This is proved from the very 
nature of it, as a commemorative institution. It is proved also 
from the fact that it was observed with great earnestness and 
constancy by the churches, under the direction of the apostles. 
For a time, they seem to have observed it every Lord's day. 
And with what care does the Apostle Paul instruct the Corin- 
thians as to the manner of observing it, many years after the 
crucifixion ; informing them at the same time, and not them 
only, but all the -churches wherever his Epistle should be read, 
that the ordinance was to be continued, and the death of Christ 
thereby to be shown forth, till his second coming, at the end of 
the world. 

Before attempting to unfold the proper import and design of 
this ordinance, it will be necessary to consider a most flagrant 
corruption and perversion of it, which commenced early in the 
church, and has continued throughout the greater part of nom- 
inal Christendom, to the present time. 

We have seen that the earliest corruption of baptism, as to 
the import of it, consisted in substituting baptism for regenera- 
tion, — the sign for the thing signified. 'It was in the same way, 
precisely, that the holy supper began to be corrupted. Instead 
of being regarded as (what in truth it is) a sign of the death 
and suiferings of Christ, — a symbol of his expiatory sacrifice 
upon the cross, — it was held to be the sacrifice itself. In the 
supper, we are told that " Christ is literally sacrificed for us. 
His body is broken, his blood is spilled, and both are taken 
by the communicant, every time he comes to the ordinance." 
Now this we call a monstrous perversion of this precious insti- 
tution. And a glance at the history of this innovation and 
perversion cannot fail to be interesting and instructive. 

In the age immediately succeeding the apostles, the sacrament 
of the supper was held and observed, in its primitive simplicity. 



731 

" No ceremonies were added, to render it more venerable in the 
eyes of the people : no false notions were entertained of its 
design ; no mystery was supposed to be concealed under the 
symbols and the perscribed actions ; the words of Christ were 
understood according to the meaning which common sense 
would put upon them ; and the ordinance was regarded as a 
memorial of his passion, and a means of strengthening the faith 
and the love of his followers.'* But these times of purity and 
simplicity did not continue very long. As the spirit of religion 
began gradually to decline, its ritual was increased; and the 
points about which new rites began to cluster were the primitive 
sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper. Those holy 
ordinances were administered in private ; they were spoken of 
as the Christian mysteries; -and some awful, mystical efficacy 
was supposed to reside in them. Language began to be used 
pretty early, — at first rhetorically, but afterwards literally, — 
implying something more than the spiritual presence of Christ 
in the sacrament ; — importing a kind of corporeal presence*. 
The. ordinance, too, was regarded as of a saving character. 
The word,s of our Saviour, taken literally, were applied to it : 
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, 
ye have no life in you" (John vi. 53). 

It was not, however, till the ninth century, that transubstan- 
tiation was explicitly inculated. The author of the heresy was 
Eadbert, Abbot of Corbey, in France, who taught that "after 
the consecration of the bread and wine, nothing remained of 
these symbols but the outward figure, under cover of which the 
body and blood of Christ were really and locally present ; and 
that the body of Christ, thus present in the eucharist, was the 
same body which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the cross, 
and was raised from the dead." 

Although the public mind had long been preparing for such 
an announcement as this, still it encountered, at the first, a 
formidable opposition. Among its opposers were the Emperor 
Charles the Bold, the Monk Ratram, and the celebrated John 
Scotus. But the doctrine was so much in accordance with the 
spirit of the age, and so well calculated to increase a veneration 
for the clergy, and to advance their power, that it gradually and 



732 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

continually prevailed, and opposition to it died away. Its last 
formidable opponent in the church of Rome was Berengar, in 
the eleventh century ; and, after numberless persecutions and 
vexations, he ended his life in exile. 

In the sixteenth century, transubstantiation received its 
final sanction from the Council of Trent, which decreed as 
follows : 

1. "If any man shall deny that in the sacrament of the most 
holy eucharist there are contained truly, really, and substan- 
tially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore a whole Christ, and 
shall say that they are in it only as in a sign or a figure ; let 
him be anathema. 

2. "If any man shall say that in the holy sacrament of the 
eucharist there remains the substance of the bread and wine, 
together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
shall deny the wonderful and singular conversion of the whole 
substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance 
of the wine into the blood, the form of bread and wine only 
remaining, which conversion the Catholic church most fitly calls 
transubstantiation ; let him be anathema." 

Such is a brief account of the manner in which the monstrous 
doctrine of transubstantiation was introduced and finally estab- 
lished in the Romish church. My objections to it are more and 
greater than I have now time to offer. Still, I must glance at 
some of them. 

The doctrine in question rests entirely on a literal interpreta- 
tion of our Saviour's words: "This is my body; this is my 
blood." But if these words are to be understood literally, why 
not some other of our Lord's declarations, such as "I am the 
vine;" "I am the door;" "I am the way" ? Yet no one ever 
thought of giving a literal interpretation to passages such as 
these. 

It is a good rule of interpretation, that the literal sense is not 
to be dropped, and a figurative one assumed, without an obvious 
necessity. But there is a necessity of supposing a figure in the 
passages before us, — a necessity as urgent as can possibly 
be conceived. For at the time of saying, " This is my body," 



THE lord's supper. 733 

and " This is my blood," our Saviour was alive in the body, and 
standing in the presence of his disciples. And how could they 
possibly understand him as proposing to give them that iden- 
tical body, under the form of bread, which they saw living and 
breathing before them ; and that identical blood, under the form 
of wine, which was then actually coursing in his veins? 

But even this is not the worst of it. The body which our 
Lord symbolically gave to his disciples was a broken body, and 
the blood was shecl blood. And if we are to suppose the dis- 
ciples to have understood him literally, then they must have 
regarded him as giving them his crucified body before it was 
crucified, and his shed blood while as yet his blood had not 
been shed ! ! They must have regarded him as giving them a 
dead body, which they knew was alive ; a broken, mangled, 
crucified body, which they saw before them well and whole ! ! 
They must have believed that Christ held himself, body and 
blood, in his own hands, and then passed himself over into 
their hands ; and that, while they actually saw him standing 
before them, he was literally in their own mouths ! ! If a sup- 
position so monstrous and self-contradictory does not create a 
necessity for a somewhat figurative interpretation, then no such 
necessity ever was created, or can be supposed, under any cir- 
cumstances, to exist. 

And yet the interpretation required' in order to give the true 
sense of the passage in question, can hardly be called a figura- 
tive one. It is one of continual occurrence, in parallel passages, 
throughout the inspired volume. When one thing is to be un- 
derstood as denoting, symbolizing, or signifying another, the 
sacred writers commonly employ the connecting verb to be, just 
as in the passages under consideration. Thus, in interpreting 
Pharaoh's dream, Joseph says : " The seven good kine ere seven 
years ; and the seven good ears .are seven years ; " that is, they 
denote, they signify seven years. So the ten horns in one of 
Daniel's visions, " are ten kings ; " and the seven stars, in the 
first chapter of the Revelation, " are the angels of the seven 
churches, and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches." 
Moses, speaking of the paschal lamb, says: "It is the Lord's 



734 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

passover ; '■ just as our Saviour says of the broken bread : 
"This is my body." 

We see, then, that the interpretation which Roman Catholics 
put upon the passages in question not only is not required, but 
is such an one as cannot for a moment be supposed or justified. 

There are also other insuperable objections to it besides those 
which have been considered. The elements employed in the 
eucharist, after their consecration, are often called by the sacred 
writers bread and wine. Thus the disciples, after the Pen- 
tecost, " continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fel- 
lowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts ii. 
42). At a later period, they were accustomed to come together 
on the first day of the week, "to break bread*" (Acts xx. 7). 
Again the apostle says : " The bread which we break, is it not 
the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. x. 16.) 

It may be further objected to the doctrine of tran substantia- 
tion, which supposes a literal sacrifice of Christ in every in- 
stance of the celebration of the supper, that on this ground he 
must have been sacrificed millions and millions of times. But 
it is expressly declared in the Scriptures that Christ, has been 
sacrificed but once. "Now once, in the end of the world, hath 
Christ appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" 
(Heb. ix. 26). " Christ w T as once offered to bear the sins of 
many" (Heb. ix. 28). "Christ also hath once suffered for sin, 
the just for the unjust" (1 Pet. iii. 18). 

But leaving the Scriptures, it is objection enough to the doc- 
trine in, question that it contradicts and subverts the testimony 
of all our senses. Our senses were given us to make us ac- 
quainted with external things, and this purpose they are admi- 
rably adapted to accomplish. On their testimony we rely, not 
only in the common affairs of life, but for nearly all the evi- 
dences whether of natural or revealed religion. How is it that 
we discover marks of design in the world around us, and con- 
sequent proof of an all-wise designer, but from the testimony 
of the senses? And how did the disciples of Christ know that 
he performed miracles and uttered prophecies, but from the 
same testimony? And how do we become acquainted with the 
truths and facts of the gospel, but by reading them in the 



the lord's supper. 735 

Scriptures or hearing them from the lips of the living teacher, — 
in other words, from the testimony of the senses? Certainly, 
any theory of philosophy or doctrine of religion, which contra- 
dicts the unequivocal testimony of the senses, — as transubstan- 
tiation confessedly does, — is on that account to be rejected. It 
strikes at the very foundations of knowledge, and cannot be 
received as true. 

Another view of the Lord's supper, akin to that which has 
been considered, is consubstantiation. This supposes the ele- 
ments to be unchanged ; and yet that the veritable body and 
blood of Christ are somehow united to them and present in 
them, so that the communicant, in receiving the sacrament, 
partakes of the real body and blood of the Saviour. This is 
the view held by Luther, and the early Lutheran reformers, 
and which belongs to the creed of the present Lutheran church. 
But this theory, though less absurd in some of its aspects than 
the former, is still liable to most of the same objections. Both 
suppose our Saviour's human body, his corporeal frame, to be 
in thousands of different places at the same instant. The 
Scriptures positively assure us that it is in heaven ; but the 
doctrine we are considering places it also on' the earth, and in 
every part of the earth at once, wherever the ordinance is ad- 
ministered. Hence, the speculations which have been indulged 
in at different periods respecting the ubiquity of Christ's human 
body. 

Just before the crucifixion, our Saviour told his disciples that 
he was about to leave them and return to his Father in heaven : 
"It is expedient for you that I go away." "I leave the world 
and go to the Father" (John xvi. 7, 28). But, on the theories 
before us, this language was not true. Christ did not leave the 
world in any sense. As he did not leave it spiritually, so nei- 
ther did he bodily. His body still remained upon the earth, to 
be sacrificed and eaten in every celebration of the holy supper. 

The Apostle Paul teaches, that while the saints are at home 
in the body they are absent from the Lord, — absent, not spirit- 
ually, but from his personal, corporeal presence. But, accord- 
ing to the theories before us, this is not true. Men may be at 
home in the body, and yet be present with the Lord, — present 



736 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

(if they can find a priest to give them the sacrament) to his 
body, soul, and divinity, — present in every sense in which the 
saints are present with him in heaven. 

It is implied, in the doctrines before us, not only that our 
Saviour's body is in thousands of different places at the same 
time, but that it is in exceedingly different, and totally opposite, 
states or conditions. It is in a state of glory, at the right hand 
of the Father in heaven, and in a state of the deepest humilia- 
tion on earth. It is exalted "far above all principality, and 
power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, 
not only in this world, but in that which is to come ; " and at 
the same instant is in the mouths of thousands of communi- 
cants, to be there chewed, masticated, swallowed, and digested ! 

But we need not pursue further these incredible^, impossible, 
monstrous suppositions. It is mortifying to think that any 
human being should ever have so stultified himself as to enter- 
tain them for a moment. It is distressing to know that they 
are not only entertained, but professedly believed, at this 
moment, by millions and millions of our fellow-men. 

Nor are the theories on which I have remarked to be regarded 
in the light of mere absurdities. They are dangerous absurdi- 
ties, full of hazard, and fraught with ruin to the interests of 
undying souls.*- Transubstantiation is accompanied always with 
the grossest idolatry. The consecrated, transmuted bread and 
wine are reverently worshipped . They are adored, on bended 
knees, as the very Saviour. 

The breaden god, having been worshipped, is next eaten. 
What other class of idolaters was ever known to devour their 
gods ? Yet the Romanist literally eats his god so often as he 
partakes of the consecrated wafer. 

Nor is this the worst of it. The supposed divinity, having 
been adored and eaten, is then trusted to as an indwelling Sav- 
iour. The poor, deluded votary flatters himself that he has 
received Christ. He has literally eaten the flesh of the Son of 
God, and has eternal life abiding in him. Of course he is satis- 
fied with what he has done. He knows, he seeks no other sal- 
vation. He passes blindly on to death and judgment, and 
finds, when it is too late, that he has a lie in his right hand. 



the lord's supper. 737 

But it is time, and more than time, that we turn from these 
absurd and ruinous theories in regard to the sacramental supper, 
and seek for its true import and influence. 

The Lord's supper, like baptism, is to be regarded as both a 
sign and a seal. As a symbol or sign it is significant. It sheds 
a light, it affords instruction. This is the view taken of it by 
Paul, when he says : "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink 
this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. xi. 
26). But what are some of the lessons of instruction held up, 
as it were, visibly, prominently before us, in the sacrament of 
the supper? 

1. We here see our own exceeding sinfulness. In this body 
broken and blood shed for us, we see what our deservings are. 
Were it not that we are guilty, ruined creatures, in clanger of 
eternal death, the Saviour need not have died for us. His body 
need not have been broken, nor his precious blood been spilt. 

2. The Lord's supper places visibly before us that great cen- 
tral doctrine of our religion, an atonement for sin. It was to 
make this atonement that Christ died upon the cross. And this 
was enough. With this, eternal justice was satisfied. The atone-' 
ment was complete when our Saviour said : "It is finished ; and 
bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." 

3. The Lord's supper sets before us, symbolically, the man- 
ner in which the saving benefits of the atonement are to be 
appropriated. It is by faith. By faith we are to feed upon the 
living bread. By faith we are to receive the cup of salvation. 
By faith we are to eat the flesh of the Son of man, and to drink 
his blood ; or (which is the same) appropriate to ourselves the 
benefits of his death. 

4. In the sacred supper, we have set before us the visible 
union and communion between Christ and his people. They 
feed upon him. They live upon him. And, as they live upon 
the Saviour, so they have a most blessed communion with him. 
Their visible communion with him at his table is but an em- 
blem of that sweeter spiritual communion with which their 
souls are refreshed. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is 
it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? And the bread 

93 



738 CHEISTIAX THEOLOGY. 

which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" 
(1 Cor. x. 16.) 

5. The supper of the Lord sets forth, also, that union, that 
fellowship, which all Christians have, or should have, one with 
another. Sitting together around the table of a common Lord, 
Christians appear to be — what they should be, and what, if 
sincere, they really are — the children of one Father, the dis- 
ciples of one Master, the brethren and sisters of one great 
family, united in object and affection on earth, and journeying 
onward to the same eternal home in heaven. 

Such are some of the precious instructions which the Lord's 
supper is calculated to set before us and impress upon us as a 
sign. But its nature, its importance, does not all lie here. I 
have said that it is a seal, as well as a sign ; in which view it 
has a binding efficacy. When a Christian goes to the supper of 
the Lord, he renews the covenant into which he had before en- 
tered, and by a solemn, sealing ordinance, binds himself to be 
faithful. And this covenant is virtually renewed and the seal 
repeated every time the sacrament is received. It is this fact, 
preeminently, which renders it so solemn a thing to go to the 
Lord's table ; which makes it necessary for " a man to examine 
himself, and so eat of that bread, and drink of that cup ; " 
which gives impression to the fearful truth, that " whosoever 
shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, 
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." It is solemn 
to enter into covenant with God. It is solemn to renew this 
covenant. But it is specially solemn to seal and re-seal it upon 
our consciences and hearts, by receiving the emblems of a 
Saviour's body and blood. 

As to the presence of Christ in the holy supper, we have seen 
in what sense he is not present. He is not there materially, cor- 
poreally. His presence with his people in this solemn ordi- 
nance is altogether of. a spiritual nature. He is present, by the 
power and influence of the Holy Spirit. In this sense, Christ is 
present, with his people, when they meet together for prayer and 
praise. " Where two or three are gathered together in my name, 
there am I in the midst of them" (Matt, xviii. 20). In this 
sense he is present with them in their closets, in the social 



the lord's supper. 739 

circle, and in the house of God. But Christ is specially present 
with his people in the sacraments ; and more especially in that 
of the supper. He makes " himself known to them in the 
breaking of bread." There are good reasons why it should be 
so. In this holy ordinance, Christ is brought very specially to 
the view of his people. He is set forth, as it were, crucified be- 
fore them. He is also brought most impressively to their recol- 
lections. They come to his table in remembrance of him. It is 
here also, as we have seen, that they renew their covenant en- 
gagements to Christ, and bind themselves, by solemn seals and 
new obligations, to live to his glory. Now, all these things are 
intended and calculated to strengthen the faith of God's people, 
to inspire gratitude, to kindle the flame of love, and to prepare 
them for a more devoted consecration and obedience. And in 
proportion as these objects are fulfilled upon them, Christ will 
be present with them, by his Spirit, to comfort and to bless. 
He will be with them at his table, to fill their souls with divine 
light and love, their hearts with rejoicing, and their lips with 
praise. 

The mode of administering the Lord's supper varies very con- 
siderably in different churches. In the church of Rome, the 
bread is not broken, and the cup is withheld from the people. 
But both these circumstances are to be regarded as perversions 
of the ordinance. The breaking of the bread is an important 
part of the symbol, setting forth the broken body of the Saviour ; 
and the administration of the cup to the whole body of the com- 
municants is expressly commanded by our Lord. "He took the 
cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all 
of it" (Matt..xxvi. 27). What arrogance, then, to withhold the 
cup from the great body of the church, and decide that they shall 
not drink of it I 

Not only the church of Rome, but some Protestant churches, 
require that the sacrament be received in a kneeling posture. 
But this, it has seemed to me, savors of superstition. It is not 
strange that the Romanist, who believes that what he sees before 
him is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, should 
kneel before it and receive it in a posture of adoration. But 
that evangelical Christians, who believe that the consecrated 



740 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

elements — though symbols of the body and blood of Christ — 
are in themselves no more than bread and wine, should kneel 
before them and seem to adore them, at least savors of super- 
stition, to give it no harder name. It is very certain that the 
disciples did not receive the elements in this posture when 
administered to them by the Lord himself. 

As to the most proper mode of administering this holy ordi- 
nance, I have only to say : Let it be done in the very words of 
the institution, and as near as possible after the divine pattern. 
The sacraments of the New Testament have long enough, and 
too long, been encumbered, disfigured, and perverted, under a 
load of superstitious inventions. It is time that they be disen- 
cumbered and restored to their primitive simplicity and signifi- 
cance. 

As respects the frequency with which the Lord's supper should 
be administered, since no precise rule is given in the Scriptures, 
it would be difficult, perhaps presumptuous, for man to legislate. 
The administration should not be so frequent as to degenerate 
into a common, ordinary service ; nor should it be so unfrequent 
that the good influences of it may not be felt from one season 
to another. Once a month we should think the extreme of fre- 
quency ; once in three months may be regarded as the other 
extreme. 

We conclude with a single remark. The Lord's supper is ob- 
viously an ordinance for Christians ; and by -Christians I mean 
real Christians, — regenerated persons. The impenitent, regard- 
ing themselves as such, and remaining such, have no right of 
access to it ; nor by those who regard them as such should they, 
under any circumstances, be admitted. The ordinance was ad- 
ministered by our Saviour to his disciples, — not to the multi- 
tude. It was instituted and intended for the edification of 
Christians, and not for the awakening and conversion of the 
ungodly. The very act of feeding upon the symbol of Christ's 
body implies that we feed upon him by faith. The very act of 
drinking the symbol of his blood implies that our trust is in 
that blood. The act of visibly communing with Christ and his 
people implies that we have real, spiritual communion, both 
with him and with them. In short, the act of coming to the 



THE lord's supper. 741 

Lord's table implies, on the very face of it, that we are Chris- 
tians ; or, at least, that we hope and trust we are ; and those 
who have no such hope cannot come without manifest hypocrisy. 
The Lord grant that we may all so come to this holy ordinance 
on earth, as to be prepared by means of it to sit down at the 
marriage supper of the Lamb in heaven. Amen. 



742 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



LECTUEE LXVIII. 

POPERY AS A CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 

The system of Popery assumes that Christ instituted his 
church upon earth, not as a free government, but a monarchy ; 
that before his ascension into heaven he constituted the Apostle 
Peter his vicar and vicegerent; that Peter was the first bishop 
of Rome ; and that Peter transmitted to the Roman bishops, who 
came after him in uninterrupted succession, all the powers and 
prerogatives which had been conferred upon himself. Hence, 
each and all of these bishops, from Peter to the present pontiff, 
have been the vicegerents of Christ upon the earth, and have 
had as much power in the church and in the world as Christ 
could have exercised had he remained here personally. In other 
words, they have supreme and universal authority. By them 
bishops are constituted in the churches. By them kings reign 
or cease to reign over th$ nations of the earth. 

Such in its theory and central authority is Popery ; and all its 
doctrines, rules, and rites — all the vast machinery by which the 
system is worked — grows out of and rests upon this funda- 
mental principle, — the supremacy of the Roman pontiff, as the 
successor of Peter. 

In treating of Popery, therefore, as a system of government, 
it will only be necessary to examine this fundamental principle. 
If this is supported, all the rest flows naturally from it. If this 
is subverted, the whole fabric falls to the ground. 

In examining this main pillar of Popery, let it be inquired, 
then, — 

I. Whether Christ did really confer upon Peter that suprem- 
acy and authority for which the Romanists contend. 



POPERY AS A CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 743 

II. Whether Peter was ever constituted bishop of Eome. 
And, 

III. On supposition that he was bishop of Rome, and brought 
with him to the episcopal chair all the authority and honors 
which Romanists claim for him, whether he transmitted these to 
his successors, and they again to theirs, in unbroken succession 
to the present time. 

First, then, did Christ actually confer upon Peter that su- 
premacy and authority for which Roman Catholics contend? 

That the Apostle Peter, though an erring and imperfect man, 
was yet, on the whole, a faithful disciple of Christ, on whom he 
bestowed distinguished favors and honors, may be fairly gathered 
from the books of the New Testament. He is generally sup- 
posed to have been the eldest of the apostles. Possessing a 
forward, ardent, and impulsive temperament, a vigorous mind, 
and a fluent tongue, he seems, during the personal ministry of 
Christ, and for some time afterwards, to have been the chief 
speaker among his brethren, and a frequent organ of communi- 
cation between them and their Master. But that any such pre- 
eminence was conferred on him by Christ, as that which the 
Romanists pretend, is not only an unscriptural supposition, it 
is one which the Scriptures unequivocally contradict. The 
passages cited by Romanists in support of their claim are 
enough to satisfy us of this, even if we had no other light on 
the subject. 

It is said, for example, that when the names of the apostles 
occur in the New Testament, that of Peter is always mentioned 
first. But this is not true. The name of Peter does not always 
stand first. "When James, Cephas (or Peter), and John, per- 
ceived the grace that was given unto me," etc. (Gal. ii. 9). 
"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as 
the other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and 
Cephas?" (1 Cor. ix. 5.) But suppose the name of Peter did 
always stand first, as it frequently does, would it follow from 
this circumstance that Peter was constituted prince of the 
apostles, universal bishop, and that all power was committed 
into his hands ? 

Not only the supremacy of Peter, but his infallibility, have 



744 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

been argued from what our Saviour said to him just before his 
fall: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you 
that he may sift you as wheat ; but I have prayed for thee that 
thy faith fail not : and when thou art converted, strengthen thy 
brethren" (Lukexxii. 31, 32) . A strange passage this, considered 
in its connection, from which to gather pontifical honors for Peter. 
It imports rather his weakness, than his supremacy ; his frailty, 
then his infallibility. The advocates of Popery must presume 
largely on the stupidity and ignorance of their people, or they 
never would venture upon such an argument as this. 

Peter's supremacy in the church has been further argued 
from what our Saviour said to him after his resurrection : "Feed 
my sheep. Feed my lambs." But this is the identical charge 
which the Apostle Paul gave to the Ephesian elders ; and which 
Peter himself gave to certain elders whom he addressed : 
"Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his 
own blood" (Acts xx. 28). "Feed the flock of God which is 
among you," etc. (1 Pet. v. 2). It is the same charge which 
is now given to all Christ's ministers. It enters into their very 
commission to preach the gospel. 

Some Catholics have inferred from Christ's charge to Peter 
the obligation of burning heretics. "The duty of feeding the 
sheep," they say, "necessarily involves that of destroying the 
wolves." We think this inference from the passage quite as 
obvious, and as reasonable, as the former. 

The supremacy of Peter has been urged from various other 
passages, of the New Testament ; — from the circumstance that 
our Saviour entered into his ship and taught (Luke v. 3) ; that 
"Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples," soon after the 
ascension of Christ, and proposed to them the choice of another 
apostle (Acts i. 15) ; that he was the principal, though not the 
only preacher on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 4) ; that he 
rebuked the falsehood of Ananias and Sapphira, in consequence 
of which they fell down dead (Acts v. 3) ; that he performed 
so many and great miracles (Acts v. 15) ; that the church 
prayed so effectually for him, when in prison (Acts xii. 5 ;) 
that Paul went up to Jerusalem to see him, and "abode with 
him fifteen days" (Gal. i. 15) ; indeed, from almost every cir- 



POPERT AS A CHURCH GOVERX3IEXT. 745 

cumstance iu the life of Peter, unless it were his denial of his 
Master, his dissimulation and rebuke at Antioch, and the fact 
that our Saviour once called him Satan, and told him to get out 
of his sight (Matt. xvi. 23). But what do all such passages 
prove? Undoubtedly, that Peter was a forward, prompt, bold, 
•and for the most part honored disciple ; one who sometimes 
made great mistakes, but who was ready to correct them; one 
whom his Saviour loved, and whom his brethren loved, and in 
whom they placed great confidence ; but not that he was exalted 
to any supremacy over them, or over the church, whose in- 
terests they were all laboring to promote. Such an idea seems 
not to have entered into the mind of one of them ; and least of 
all into that of Peter. 

But the principal passage in proof of Peter's supremacy, and 
almost the only one that has enough of plausibility to entitle it 
to a serious consideration, is that in Matt. xvi. 18 : "And I say 
also unto thee, that thou art Peter ; and on this rock will I 
build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it." Our Saviour had asked Peter, and the other disciples : 
"But whom say ye that I am? And Peter said, Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God." The Saviour then replied, 
in the words before given : "Thou art Peter," etc. The princi- 
pal inquiry now is, What did our Saviour mean by the word 
rock? "On this rock will I build- my church," etc. The 
Eomanists insists that the rock meaus Peter; and in proof of 
it they tell us that the word ttetqo;, Peter, signifies a rock, a 
stone. But the word here rendered rock is not ttetqo;, the name 
of 'Peter, in the masculine gender, but ttetqu, in the feminine; 
thus clearly indicating that the masculine ttetqo; was not the 
thing intended, but something else, which could be set forth 
by another and a feminine noun, ttetqu. What, then, was the 
ttetou, the rock? Clearly, as it seems to me, the noble con- 
fession which Peter had just made ; or rather, the foundation 
truth which Peter had uttered, " Thou art the Christ, the Son 
of the living God." This truth is, indeed, the ttetqu, the rock, 
on which the whole church rests ; and " the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it." 

We see, therefore, from the very terms employed, that Peter 

94 



746 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

was not the rock. We learn the same from many other Scrip- 
tures. Christ, and not Peter, is set forth in both Testaments, 
as the corner-stone of Zion, — the rock which lies at the founda- 
tion of his church. "The stone which the builders rejected, 
the same is become the head of the corner" (Ps. cxviii. 22). 
" Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a 
precious corner-stone, a sure foundation" (Is. xxviii. 16). 
" Other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is 
Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. iii. 11). 

But we have not yet done with Christ's declaration to Peter. 
" And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; 
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in 
heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be 
loosed in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 19). Here is, undoubtedly, a 
communication of authority ; but it is an authority which Peter 
enjoyed, not alone, but in common with the rest of the apostles. 
This is certain from the fact that, in parallel passages, the same 
power is expressly imparted to all the apostles, which is here 
conferred upon Peter. " Yerily, I say unto you" (disciples), 
"that whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in 
heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed 
in heaven" (Matt, xviii. 18). " Whose soever sins ye remit, 
they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, 
they are retained" (John xx. 23). 

These apostles were God's chosen instruments for laying the 
foundations of the Christian church. It devolved on them to 
open to the world the new dispensation ; to organize the Chris- 
tian community, and give it laws ; to preach the kingdom of 
God, and gather men into it. To qualify them for this most 
important work, they received the plenary inspiration of the 
Holy Spirit, so that whatever they did or said, in discharge of 
their high commission, was to be regarded as coming from God. 
It was in this sense that they were qualified to bind, or loose ; 
to remit sins, or retain them ; and might be said to have the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever new laws or bur- 
dens they might impose upon the church, God imposed them ; 
and whatever existing burdens they might remove, God re- 
moved them. They were qualified, by the Spirit, to state pre 1 - 



POPEKY AS A CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 747 

cisely the conditions of pardon and justification; so that whose 
soever sins they might declare remitted, would be remitted ; 
and whose soever sins they declared retained, would be retained. 
Here was, indeed, a high and responsible authority committed 
to the apostles ; but then it was committed to all alike, — no 
more to Peter than the rest ; and the inspiration with which 
they were favored qualified them to exercise it with unerring 
fidelity. We see, then, that this whole passage, rightly inter- 
preted, confers no supremacy or superiority upon Peter. 

That he possessed no superiority in the apostolic churches is 
abundantly evident from other Scriptures. On one occasion, 
our Saviour absolutely prohibited any of his disciples (and 
Peter, of course, among the rest) from exercising authority 
one over another. "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles 
exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise 
authority upon them ; but it shall not be so among you ; " — an 
express contradiction of the alleged supremacy of Peter, and a 
prohibition of all Popish dominion (Matt. xx. 25). 

" When the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Sa- 
maria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter 
and John" (Acts viii. 14). Here, Peter seems subject to au- 
thority, rather than in the possession of it. 

When Peter had returned from his mission to Cornelius, and 
had " come to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision 
contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uneir- 
cumcised, and didst eat with them" (Acts xi. 3). This does 
not look as though Peter had the supremacy among the disciples, 
and was their acknowledged sovereign and head. 

At Antioch, Paul " withstood Peter to his face, because he 
was to be blamed " (Gal. ii. 11). Peter, you see, was not infal- 
lible ; nor did Paul know aught at this time of his supremacy. 
On another occasion, Paul says, "I was not a whit behind the 
chiefest apostles " — of course not behind, or inferior to, Peter 
(2 Cor. xi. 5). 

The consultation which was held at Jerusalem on the question 
of circumcising the Gentile converts is often appealed to in proof 
of Peter's supremacy. But nothing can more effectually dis- 
prove it. If there was auy superiority manifested here, it was 



748 CHRISTIAN. THEOLOGY. 

that of James, and not of Peter. For after the case had been 
fully stated, and Peter and the rest had delivered their senti- 
ments, James summed up the matter in the following words : 
" My sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among 
the Gentiles are turned unto God," etc. (Acts xv. 19). What 
presumption this, on the part of James, on supposition that 
Peter had long before been constituted prince of the apostles, 
and Christ's vicar and vicegerent on the earth ! 

As the other apostles had no idea of Peter's supremacy, so 
the thought seems never to have entered his own mind. In his 
epistles, written near the close of life, he expresses himself 
uniformly with great modesty and humility, putting himself on 
a level with the lowest of his brethren, and condescending to 
use the language of exhortation and entreaty, when, on the sup- 
position before us, he might more properly have issued out his 
bulls of authority, — his words of command and commination. 
"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an 
elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ" (1 Pet. v. 1). 

And as neither Peter himself, nor the church in his age, had 
any thought of his supremacy, so neither did the Christian 
fathers, who lived in the ages immediately following, entertain 
any such idea. Several of them expressed their views of the 
passage, "Thou art Peter," etc., and all, so for as we know, 
without an exception, interpret the language as conferring noth- 
ing upon Peter which did not belong equally to the other apos- 
tles. 1 Many of the fathers, as Cyril, Hilary, Augustine, Epi- 
phanius, and Theodoret, interpreted the nsrQa, the rock, as I have 
done, to denote, not Peter, but the great fundamental truth 
which Peter had professed. Chrysostom speaks of John as the 
" most beloved of Christ, and the pillar of all the churches ; " 
though he affirms that " the dignity of all the apostles is equal." 
Indeed, the argument for Papal supremacy, drawn from the 
alleged supremacy of Peter, was not mentioned or thought of 
until hundreds of years after the death of the apostles. 

But were we to allow (what can never be proved, and what 
the Scriptures and the Fathers expressly contradict) , that Peter 

1 Such, certainly, was the decision of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Theophy- 
lact, and of many others. 



POPERY AS A CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 749 

was advanced to a primacy among the apostles, and a suprem- 
acy in the church, can it be shown, in the second place, that he 
was ever bishop of Rome ? For if he was not the bishop of 
Rome, his supremacy, if admitted, would be of no avail to the 
Roman Catholic. 

In answer to this question, I hardly need say, that the Scrip- 
tures furnish not one particle of evidence that Peter was ever 
bishop of Rome, but much evidence to the contrary. 

The tradition of the Romanists is, that Peter Was first bishop 
of Antioch, from which place he was transferred to Rome, 
where he continued bishop twenty-five years, to the time of his 
martyrdom, which took place in the persecution under Nero, 
about A. D. 65. Let us take now this tradition, and compare 
it with the facts and representations of Scripture. From the 
death of Christ, A. D. 33, to the persecution under Nero, 
A. D. 65, there were only thirty-two years. From the first 
and second chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, it appears 
that full twenty years after the death of Christ, Peter was a 
resident at Jerusalem, where Paul went up to see him, and 
received from him, and James and John, the right hand of fel- 
lowship (Gal. ii. 7). We next hear of Peter at Antioch, 
where he dissembled, and Paul openly rebuked him (Gal. 
ii. 11). Subsequent to this, he was probably at Corinth, as 
that church became divided respecting their ministers ; some 
claiming to be of Paul, and some of Apollos, and some of 
Cephas, — another name for Peter (1 Cor. i. 12). Still later in 
life, we find him in Babylon, in the neighborhood of which 
many Jews had resided ever after the Babylonish captivity. It 
is from this place that he dates his first epistle (1 Pet. v. 13). 
According to the testimony of Origen, Peter's missionary labors 
were chiefly among the dispersed Jews in the regions of Pontus, 
Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia. And this agrees 
with the representations of Paul, that while he was commis- 
sioned to go to the heathen, Peter was the apostle of the cir- 
cumcision. (Gal. ii. 7.) It agrees also with the representation 
of Peter himself, who directs his first epistle to " the strangers, 
(that is, foreign Jews) scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, 
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." 



750 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

And now, in view of all these facts, we would seriously ask, 
Where is there room for Peter's twenty-five years' residence at 
Kome? After the period when we know of his residence at 
Jerusalem, there remain but twelve years to the time of his 
death. And in these twelve years must be included his visit- to 
Antioch and Corinth, and the numerous missionary operations 
in which he seems to have been engaged during the latter part 
of his life. Where, then, I ask again, will room be found for 
Peter's twenty-five years' residence at Rome ; or for his being 
there any considerable time previous to his martyrdom? 

But passing over all these chronological difficulties, how does 
the supposition of Peter's beiug twenty-five years bishop of 
Rome agree with other representations of Scripture? Paul 
wrote his Epistle to the Romans about the year 57, long after 
Peter, according to the tradition of the Romanists, had been 
made bishop of that church ; and yet there is not a word about 
Peter in it, nor so much as an intimation that Peter, or any 
other apostle, had ever been at Rome. In the last chapter of 
the epistle, Paul sends salutations to beloved Christian friends 
at Rome, mentioning them by name, and intimating a variety 
of circumstances respecting them ; but still not one word with 
regard to Peter. Two or three years later, Paul himself arrived 
a prisoner at Rome, and was received with great favor by the 
brethren, but no mention is made of Peter. Paul dwelt two 
whole years at Rome, "in his own hired house," where he wrote 
several of his epistles to the churches ; but in none of these do 
we find the slightest reference to Peter. 

Nor is this the worst of it. In the epistles of Paul written 
from Rome, there are intimations which would be highly dis- 
reputable to Peter, on supposition he was now bishop there. 
"All seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's" 
(Phil. ii. 21). "At my first answer, no man stood with me, 
but all men forsook me. I pray God that it may not be laid to 
their charge" (2 Tim. iv. 16). Where, now, was Peter on this 
trying occasion ? Did he forsake his brother Paul ? In face of 
all these representations, who can believe that up to the time 
of Paul's second Epistle to Timothy, Peter had been bishop of 
Rome? 



POPEKY AS A CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 751 

In short, there is no reason to suppose that, in the proper 
sense of the term, Peter was ever a bishop anywhere. He was 
an apostle, and not a bishop. Not only are these two offices 
distinct ; they are incompatible one with the other. An apostle 
is a missionary, a minister at large, one who has "the care of 
all the churches." A bishop has, or should have, a pastoral 
charge. He is the overseer of a particular flock. The apostles 
were given to the church general, and not to any particular 
portion or portions of it. They were appointed that they might 
be "witnesses for Christ, in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and 
in Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts i. 8). 
Peter is degraded by the supposition that, from being a distin- 
guished apostle, he settled down as bishop of a single city, even 
though that city were Rome. 

There is an additional circumstance, which renders the sup- 
position of Peter's having been bishop of Rome still more vio- 
lent and inadmissible. Peter was not only an apostle, but the 
apostle of the circumcision (Gal. ii. 7). He was led, through 
the greater part of his life, and more especially the latter part 
of it, to direct his ministrations to the scattered and dispersed 
Jews. Having been specially appointed to this work, and 
qualified for it, who believes that he would suddenly retire from 
it, and take charge of a church in a Gentile city, — a church, too, 
composed chiefly of Gentile converts? The supposition is, in 
every view, inadmissible ; and with the Scriptures to guide us, 
we are led unavoidably to the conclusion, that Peter never was 
bishop of Eome. 

But were we to concede even this, and admit that Peter 
brought to his bishopric that ecclesiastical supremacy for which 
the Romanists contend ; how do we know, in the third place, 
that his supremacy and authority descended to his successors ? 
There were many things pertaining to the character and office 
of the apostles which were peculiar to them ; which they neither 
did nor could impart to others ; and how does it appear that 
this alleged supremacy was not one of the incommunicable 
things? Or, if we regard the supremacy as communicable, 
there is yet another difficulty. Who was the immediate suc- 
cessor of Peter? Who are his successors now? One tells us 



752 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

that Clemens was first in the succession. Another, that this 
honor belongs to Linus. Some say that Cletus and Anacletus 
were two different popes. Others, that they are but different 
names of the same person. All agree that Linus was one of 
the first popes after Peter, if not the very first ; but Linus, the 
ancients tell us, received ordination from Paul, and not from 
Peter, and consequently can have had no share in the alleged 
supremacy. 

And as we proceed down the line of Romish bishops, we find 
sometimes two and sometimes three or four popes, quarrelling 
and fighting for the pontificate ; each contending that he has it ; 
and each excommunicating and anathematizing all the rest. 
Who then shall decide, at this day, where the alleged succession 
runs, or whether it runs anywhere; whether it has not, long 
ago, run out, and become extinct? 

I here leave the argument for the supremacy of the popes of 
Eome, growing out of their pretended relation to Peter. A 
more futile and baseless argument, on which to build so mighty 
a superstructure, was never before heard of. The moment it is 
analyzed and examined in the light of Scripture and fiCct, it 
vanishes into something less than thin air, — into absolute noth- 
ing. Peter had no supremacy given him over the rest of the 
apostles. Or if he had, we know that he was never bishop of 
Rome. Or if, clothed with a supremacy, he was bishop of 
Rome, we have no evidence that he imparted supreme power 
to his successors ; nor do we even know who his successors were. 

We might urge many other objections against the existence 
of an ecclesiastical hierarchy, like that at Rome, with a supreme 
pontiff at its head, claiming to be the vicegerent of Christ on 
the earth. 

Such a form of government is entirely different from that 
which was established in the churches by the apostles them- 
selves. This, we have before seen, was not a monarchy, but 
rather a democracy. It was a free, popular government. 
Every church was a little community by itself, — choosing its 
own officers, enacting its own laws, and managing indepen- 
dently its own concerns, subject only to the rules of Christ. 



POPERY AS A CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 753 

Nothing can be more diverse than such au organization, from 
that which the Roman pontiffs would force upon the world. 

In setting forth Christ's ascension gifts to his church, Paul 
says : "He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some 
evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of 
the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the 
body of Christ" (Eph. iv. 11, 12). If now the supreme pontiff, 
the universal bishop, the vicar and vicegerent of Christ on the 
earth, were really among those ascension gifts, why is he not 
mentioned here? Surely, the greatest and most important gift 
of all, as Roman Catholics view it, ought not to have been 
omitted. 

There is another fact which I submit for consideration. It is 
likely that several of the apostles lived longer than Peter. 
John, in particular, is supposed to have survived him more than 
thirty years. But, on the theory of the Romanists, these sur- 
viving apostles were all of them in subjection to the bishop of 
Rome. Here was the venerable John, the disciple whom Jesus 
loved, and whom Chrysostom describes as "the pillar of all the 
churches," in subjection to Clemens, or Linus, or Cletus, or 
Anacletus, or perhaps successively to them all. If he did not r 
walk or teach according to the mind of those Romish priests, it 
was their prerogative to« control or silence him. And if he did 
not submit to their dictation, they might issue out their bulls, 
and have him before them, or might hurl their anathemas at his 
head. 

No more need be said to show that Popish supremacy and 
the Scriptures are utterly repugnant to each other. They can- 
not stand or exist together. And as little pretence is there for 
founding this doctrine of supremacy upon early Christian an- 
tiquity. A thousand facts might be adduced to show that it 
had no existence in the church before the time of Constantine. 
And for several hundred years after Constantine, the emperors 
undeniably exercised supreme power in the church. They 
issued laws, convened councils, deposed bishops, decided con- 
troversies, and performed every act of sovereignty, as they 
pleased. And when, at length, the bishop of Rome acquired the 
title of universal bishop, it was one of the emperors who con- 

95 



754 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ferred it. Near the beginning of the seventh century, the Em- 
peror Phocas, — having murdered his predecessor and mounted 
his throne, — in order to secure the support of the Eomish 
bishop, bestowed upon him the fore-mentioned title ; — a title 
which one of the bishops of Rome, only a few years before, had 
declared to be "profane, antichristian, and infernal." It appears, 
then, that the bishop of Rome became "universal bishop," not 
by the gift of God, but by the decree of a murderer. 



PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 755 



LECTURE LXIX. 

PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 

That the church of Christ is not always to be, what it always 
has been, a body comparatively feeble, despised, and persecuted, 
— that it is yet to be enlarged, so as to fill the earth, and enjoy 
a long period of rest and peace, — is clearly predicted in the 
Scriptures, and is the almost universal belief of evangelical 
Christians. The stone cut out of the mountain without hands, 
is yet to "become a mountain, and fill the whole earth." "The 
kingdom, and dominion, and greatness of the kingdom under 
the whole heaven, is to be given to the people of the saints of 
the Most High" (Dan. ii. 35 ; vii. 27). 

The binding of Satan for a thousand years, foretold in the 
twentieth chapter of the Revelation, has generally been supposed 
to have reference to this promised period of rest and peace to the 
church. Such was the universal belief of the early Christians, 
as appears from the writings of Barnabas, Justin, Irenseus, Ter- 
tullian, Cyprian, and many others. Such, too, has been the 
belief of most modern writers who have treated of the subject. 
Accordingly, the future period of rest to the church has uni- 
formly been denominated the Millennium, or the thousand 
years. 

A very interesting inquiry in regard to this subject, and one 
about which there has been much diversity of opinion, has 
respect to the manner in which the Millennium is to be intro- 
duced. How is this great change to be brought about ? How 
is the Millennium to be ushered in ? 

In the opinion of some, the Millennium, is to be introduced 
by the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the holy 
dead, and the conflagration of the world ; and is to be consum- 



756 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

mated in the personal reign of Christ with his people in the 
"new heavens and new the earth, wherein dwelleth righteous- 
ness." Those who hold this opinion believe that the next great 
event to be looked for is the coming of Christ ; and this they 
are expecting in a very short time. 

My objections to this view are many and various, more than 
I have now time to offer. 

In the first place, this doctrine tends to discourage effort in 
the ways in which it is ordinarily put forth for the spread of the 
gospel, and the conversion of the world to Christ. " Such effort," 
it is said, "has never yet availed for the conversion of the great 
mass of men, and it never will. It is well enough to continue 
it till Christ shall come ; but the world can never be converted 
in this way." Persons who talk after this manner may disclaim 
all intention of discouraging effort for the general diffusion of 
the gospel ; and yet it is certain they do it. From the very 
nature of the case it must be so ; and facts might be adduced to 
prove that it is so. There is no more powerful stimulant to effort 
than the hope, the prospect, of success. Take this away, and 
exertion languishes, and zeal and interest expire. They are felt, 
are manifested no longer. 

But, secondly, the Scriptures teach us that not the righteous 
only, but the wicked, are to be raised at the coming of Christ, 
and that both classes are to be judged together. The theory 
before us denies both these positions. The righteous are to be 
raised at the beginning of the Millennium, and reign with Christ 
until the close of it ; and then the wicked are to be raised and 
judged by themselves. But how does this doctrine agree with 
the following representations of Scripture? "The many that 
sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting 
life and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan. xii. 2). 
The representation is that they shall awake together. "The 
hour is coming, in which all that are in their graves shall come 
forth ; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, 
and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damna- 
tion" (John v. 28). "When the Son of man shall come in 
his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit 
upon the throne of his glory ; #nd before him shall be gathered 



PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 757 

all nations, and he shall separate them one from another, as a 
shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats" (Matt. xxv. 31). 
These passages teach unequivocally that the human race, both 
the righteous and the wicked, are to be raised and judged to- 
gether, and not at periods far remote from each other. 

Thirdly. It is evident, from the closing chapters of the Kev- 
elation, that the Millennium is to precede the resurrection and 
the judgment, and it is to be in the present world. The order 
of events, as here predicted, is very obvious and distinct. 
First, we have a description of the Millennium in the beginning 
of the twentieth chapter. This is followed by a melancholy 
defection at the close of the thousand years. Next comes the 
destruction of the hosts of the wicked from off the face of the 
earth. Next, the great white throne and the general judgment. 
Next, the final and endless destruction of the wicked. And, ^ 
last of all, the new heavens and the new earth, — the heavenly 
Jerusalem, — the everlasting abode of all the saints. In this 
account, the Millennium clearly precedes the judgment ; and 
precedes, by a great way, the new heavens and new earth. 

Fourthly. To suppose the w r orld now to come to an end, 
and the Millennium to succeed the resurrection and the judg- 
ment, is to cut short, immensely, the anticipated triumphs of 
the gospel. The reign of sin on this earth has been long and 
terrible. Satan has been vaunting' himself "the god of this 
world," and has been drawing the great body of the world's 
inhabitants after him to destruction, for almost six thousand 
years. And if the grand drama of the world's history is to 
end here ; if no more are to be saved than have been already ; 
if the gospel is to achieve no greater conquests ; will it not be 
said that the scheme of redemption has proved a comparative 
failure? Where are its predicted, anticipated triumphs? 
Where is the " great multitude which no man can number," the 
" ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thou- 
sands," redeemed "out of every nation, and kindred, and 
tongue, and people," the countless myriads of the finally saved, 
sufficient to satisfy the soul of the Saviour, and in comparison 
with which the number of the lost may not be greater than is 
the number of those immiireck in our prisons, compared with 



758 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

the happy multitude who enjoy their liberty ? Certainly, those 
who believe that the mystery of God is about to be finished, 
and the process of redemption to be closed, must have very 
low ideas of what redemption was adapted to accomplish, and 
of what, in the progress of things, it is destined to accomplish 
for the happiness of human beings and the glory of God. 

I object, fifthly, to the notion of a Millennium in the other 
world, that its advocates can give no rational account of the 
great defection at the close of the Millennium (Rev. xx. 7-9). 
They tell us, indeed, that the "Gog and Magog" who are 
"gathered together from the four quarters of the earth, and 
compass the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city," 
are the wicked dead, now just raised from their graves. But 
the wicked dead are never in the Scriptures called Gog and 
Magog. Nor, if they were, would they be represented as 
gathered together from the four quarters of the earth, but 
rather from their graves. And who can believe that the wicked 
dead, in that day of horrors, will come out of their graves with 
the disposition to fight — to make war upon their final Judge 
and upon his faithful people ? Eather will their terror and dis- 
may prompt them to shrink away in fear and darkness, crying 
to the rocks and the mountains to fall upon them and hide them 
from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne. 

But, sixthly, my principal objection to the doctrine of the 
immediate coming of Christ, and of a Millennium in the other 
world, is, that there remains much glorious prophecy to be ful- 
filled in this world before the general conflagration. In par- 
ticular, the Jews are to be reclaimed from their blindness and 
infidelity, and converted to the faith of Christ. This the Scrip- 
tures have decided with the utmost explicitness. " The children 
of Israel shall abide many clays without a king, and without a 
prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and 
without an ephod, and without teraphim." This is an exact 
description of what the Jews have now been for a long period. 
But " afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek 
the Lord their God, and David their king, and shall fear the 
Lord and his goodness, in the latter days" (Hos. iii. 4, 5). 

In the eleventh chapter of th# Epistle to the Eomans, a clear 



PEOSPECTS OF THE CHUECH EN T THIS WOELD. 759 

distinction is made between the Jews and the Gentiles, and it 
is repeatedly and expressly promised that the Jews are to be 
converted. "What shall the receiving of them be, but life 
from the dead?" "How much more shall these, which be the 
natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?" 
"Blindness in part is happened unto Israel, until the fulness of 
the Gentiles be come in ; and so all Israel shall be saved. As 
it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and 
shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob ; for this is my cov- 
enant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." 

And not only are the Jews to be converted, but with them 
the fulness of the Gentile world is to be brought in. This is 
expressly promised in this same eleventh chapter of the Epistle 
to the Romans, and in various other parts of the Bible. How 
often was it promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that in 
their seed (which is Christ) all the nations and families of the 
earth should be blessed ! This promise, in all its richness and 
fulness, has never yet been accomplished. It remains that it 
must be, before the world is destroyed. 

"All the ends of the earth shall remember, and turn unto the 
Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before 
me" (Ps. xxii. 27). Certainly, this prediction or promise has 
never yet been fulfilled. 

"Then shall the earth yield her increase, and God, even our 
God, shall bless us ; and all the ends of the earth shall fear 
him" (Ps. lxvii. 7). It is a part of the promise, that "the 
earth shall yield her increase ; " which shows that it belongs to 
the present world. The time, then, must come in the present 
world, when all the ends of the earth shall fear the Lord. 

The Psalmist, speaking of Christ's kingdom, says: "In his 
days shall the righteous flourish, and abundance of peace, so 
long as the moon endureth. He shall have dominion from sea 
to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." "Men 
shall be blessed in him : all nations shall call him blessed " 
(Ps. lxxii. 7, 8, 17). The entire phraseology of this psalm shows 
that it is to be fulfilled in the present world; while there are 
mountains and hills, a sun and moon, seas and rivers, rain and 
showers. And, certainly, much more is predicted here, in 



760 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

regard to the extension of Christ's kingdom, than has ever yet 
been accomplished. 

Time would fail to quote all the passages from the prophets, 
in which reference is made to a season of glorious rest to the 
church, to be enjoyed in the present world. "It shall come to 
pass, in the last days," — not in- the new heavens and earth, but 
in the last days, — "that the mountain of the Lord's house shall 
be established on the top of the mountains, and exalted above 
the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people 
will say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, 
to the house of the God of Jacob ; and he will teach us of his 
ways, and we will walk in his paths. And he shall judge 
among the nations, and shall rebuke many people ; and they 
shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into 
pruning-hooks ; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, 
neither shall they learn war any more " (Is. ii. 2-4). A proph- 
ecy almost verbally similar to this, we have in Micah iv. 1-4. 
It is obviously to be accomplished in the present world, and as 
obviously is yet unfulfilled. 

Addressing the Messiah, God says : "It is a light thing that 
thou shouldest be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, 
and to restore the preserved of Israel. I will also give thee 
for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to 
the ends of the earth" (Is. xlix. 6). The conversion of both 
Jews and Gentiles, even unto the ends of the earth, is here 
predicted to take place under the Messiah's kingdom. Cer- 
tainly, no such events have yet taken place, nor will they take 
place in the other world. There will be no conversions there. 
It follows that the prediction must be accomplished before the 
end of this world. 

With reference to the period of which we speak, God says : 
"At that time, they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the 
Lord ; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the 
name of the Lord ; neither shall they walk any more after the 
imagination of their evil heart" (Jer. iii. 17). Here again we 
have a prediction of the conversion of the nations, to be ac- 
complished, of course, in the present world. 

The same thing we find often predicted in the New Testament. 



PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 761 

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman 
took and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was 
leavened" (Matt. xiii. 33). "And I, if I be lifted up from 
the earth, will draw all men unto me" (John xii. 32). "And 
the seventh angel sounded, and there were great voices in 
heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the 
kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign 
forever and ever" (Eev. xi. 15)-. 

From all these passages, to which many others might be 
added, the two following deductions are clearly drawn : — 

1. That much glorious prophecy remains to be accomplished, 
in the present world. Of course, the end of the present world 
is not to be immediately expected. And, 

2. That the future state of rest and peace to the church, 
commonly called the Millennium, is to be enjoyed in this world, 
and not in the next. 

The theory above considered, as to the introduction of the 
Millennium, and the coming of Christ, is that commonly known 
as the Millerite doctrine, — more confidently advocated some 
thirty years ago than it is now. The view taken by the Lit- 
eralists of Great Britain, and of this country, differs somewhat 
from that which has been examined, and is, at present, more 
respectably represented. These brethren expect the speedy 
coming of Christ, not to destroy this' world, but to purify it, 
and reign personally in it. The holy dead are to be raised in 
their glorified bodies, and are to reign here with Christ upon 
the earth. Meanwhile, the earth is to continue much as it is at 
present ; and the natural inhabitants of the earth are to live 
and multiply, they are to be born and to die, as they do now. 
But under the personal reign of Christ, and the ministry of his 
saints, the nations of the earth are to be speedily converted, 
and holiness and peace are to prevail for a thousand years. 

This theory of the Millennium is open to several of the ob- 
jections which were urged against the last. Like that, it depre- 
ciates and discourages effort, in the ordinary way, for the spread 
of the gospel, and the conversion of men to Christ. "Such 
effort has accomplished but little, especially in modern times. 
No great changes for the better are to be expected until the 

96 



762 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

coming of Christ; and then his kingdom will spread and 
prevail." 

This theory, like the last, supposes two resurrections ; that 
of the saints at the opening of the Millennium, and that of the 
wicked at the end of the world. 

Like the last, too, this theory makes no provision for the 
great defection and catastrophe at the close of the Millennium. 
When the Lord Jesus Christ shall have reigned here in glory, 
for the long space of a thousand years, surrounded by his glo- 
rified saints; and when, by their instrumentality, his kingdom 
shall have been extended all over the earth ; where is that vast 
company of ungodly sinners to come from, who are to compass 
the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city, in number 
as the sand of the sea? (Rev. xx. 8, 9.) And with what cour- 
age or confidence can these confederate sinners be expected to 
face, not only the armies terrestrial to be arrayed against them, 
but the brighter armies celestial, and the Almighty Redeemer, 
in his own proper person? 

But *this theory is open to other objections peculiar to itself. 
In the first place, Christ has no longer a body of flesh and blood, 
adapted to a residence in this gross, material world. The bodies 
of his saints, too, when raised in glory from the dead, will be 
spiritual, incorruptible, immortal, in all respects like the body 
of their Saviour. Is it likely that, with such bodies,— adapted 
to heaven, but not to earth, — certainly not to the earth as it is, 
— these glorified beings will come and dwell here for the long 
period of a thousand years? How much better for them to 
remain where they now are, in heaven, and convert the nations 
rather by spiritual influences, than by an ill-adapted bodily 
presence ! 

Besides, we can hardly conceive what sort of intercourse 
could exist between such spiritual, glorious beings, and gross 
men and women of earthly mould. Christ, it seems, is to be 
literally King in Zion ; his subordinates are the glorified saints ; 
but the people over whom he rules are of an entirely different 
nature and texture. They are in flesh and blood ; they are 
corrupted and depraved ; they live in families and in society, 
much as we do now ; they marry and are given in marriage ; 



PKOSPECTS OF THE *CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 763 

they grow and decay ; they are born and they die. The ques- 
tion is, How beings of such different natures, so differently 
constituted and situated, are adapted to dwell personally to- 
gether on the same earth, and sustain to each other the relations 
of rulers and ruled, of teachers and taught? What is to be the 
nature of their intercourse? How are their instructions to be 
given, and their orders to be issued and executed? In what 
way is the government to be administered, and the objects of it 
to be secured ? 

But there are other objections to the doctrine before us. The 
Scriptures represent the coming of Christ, the final conflagra- 
tion, and the general judgment, as taking place together, or 
very near each other. "When the Son of man shall come in 
his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit on 
the throne of his glory" (Matt. xxv. 31). "The day of the 
Lord wi-11 come as a thief in the night ; in the which the heavens 
shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt 
with fervent heat, the earth also, and all that is therein, shall 
be burned up" (2 Pet. iii. 10). It is certain, from these pas- 
sages, that this earth, as it now is, is not to stand a thousand 
years after the coming of Christ. It is almost immediately to 
be burned up. It is certain, too, that the work of conversion 
is not to be carried on after the coming of Christ ; because the 
judgment is immediately to follow, and the righteous and the 
wicked are to be separated to their eternal abodes. 

I find another difiiculty with the doctrine in question, grow- 
ing out of the condition of those multitudes who are to be 
regenerated during the Millennium. How are they to be dis- 
posed of? What is to be done with them? The saints, who 
had died previous to the Millennium, have all been raised from 
the dead, to reign with Christ on the earth, in their glorified 
bodies. But here is a vast multitude, who have been converted 
during the millennial period. Are they to be exempt from 
death? And if so, are they to live in their gross bodies; or 
are their bodies to be changed? Or, if they are to die, and 
their bodies go down to the dust, when are they to have a res- 
urrection ? Are they to be raised with the wicked at the end 
of the world? Or shall there be a resurrection specially for 



764 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

them ; making three resurrections in all, instead of one, as the 
Scriptures represent? Now these are all fair questions, flowing 
legitimately from the theory under consideration ; and what 
answer shall be given to them ? Taking the Scriptures for our 
guide, what answers can be given? 

We feel constrained, therefore, to reject this second theory 
(supported though it be by respectable names), as to the com- 
ing of Christ, and the introduction of millennial glory. The 
Scriptures adduced in its favor are not sufficient to support it ; 
while the objections to it are apparently insuperable. 
, So much time has been taken in considering these two hy- 
potheses with regard to the introduction of the millennium, 
that the remainder of the discussion must be deferred to another 
Lecture. 



PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 765 






LECTURE LXX. 

PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH EST THIS WORLD. 

In the preceding Lecture, I spoke of that future state of rest 
and peace to the church upon earth, so often referred to by an- 
cient prophets, and so confidently expected by Christians at the 
present day, — the state commonly and not inappropriately styled 
the Millennium. We enter at once upon the question, How is the 
Millennium to be introduced? In discussing this question, we 
were to review the opinions of those who insist that the Millen- 
nium is to be ushered in by the personal appearing of Christ, — 
either to destroy this world, and reign with his glorified people 
in the new heavens and the new earth, or to purify the existing 
earth and hold his millennial kingdom here. We saw reason to 
reject both these theories. The question, therefore, is still before 
us? How is the Millennium to be introduced? 

Some think that it will be introduced by a miracle. They dis- 
claim the expectation of Christ's personal appearing, but believe 
that we are soon to " see the sign of the Son of man in heaven," 
— some miraculous appearance or manifestation of Christ, — 
which will be followed by great results, and usher in his glorious 
kingdom. With regard to this, we have only to say, that the 
direct object of miracles seems never to have been so much the 
conversion of sinners, as the attestation of the divine word. And 
as this object has long since been accomplished, and the canon 
of Scripture closed, so the era of miracles seems to have passed 
'finally away. It may well be doubted whether a proper miracle 
has been performed on the earth during the last fifteen hundred 
years. And I as much doubt whefher there will be another for 
hundreds of years to come. 

Or if miracles should be again performed, it may be questioned 



766 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

whether they would aid essentially in the work of the world's 
conversion. They would undoubtedly startle those who witnessed 
them. They would attract attention and lead to various inquiry 
and speculation. But miracles alone never converted men, and 
they never will. Sinners are to be converted, if converted at 
all, through the influence of truth, and the accompanying power 
of the Holy Ghost ; and now that the truth has been fully 
revealed and sufficiently attested, they can be converted in this 
way without miracles as well as with them. 

How, then, is the Millennium to be introduced? We answer : 
Much will be done towards the accomplishment of this great ob- 
ject, by providential arrangements. God is now on the throne 
of providence, and he is ordering all things with a view to the 
ultimate triumph of his kingdom. He is not in a hurry in the 
disposal of events. In some instances, he may seem to be even 
"slack concerning his promises." But it is only because he is 
taking a wider sweep and preparing for the more effectual over- 
throw of his enemies. The great God does not exist as we do, 
in a little space, — confined to a narrow bound of years. He has 
time enough, and he takes it, — he has room enough, and he 
takes it, — in which to provide for his friends and overthrow his 
enemies, in a way that shall be most glorious to himself. And 
he will continue to roll along the great wheel of his providence, 
— to "overturn, and overturn, and overturn," — till all those 
multiform evils which now afflict the earth * and insult the 
heavens, shall be taken out of the way, and "the kingdom, 
and dominion, and greatness of the kingdom under the whole 
heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most 
High'\(Dan. vii..27). 

All this may not be done so speedily as some, in their zeal, 
desire and anticipate ; but it ivill assuredly be done. The God 
of grace and of nature, — the Infinite Author of the promises, 
and the Supreme Disposer of events are the same ; and while his 
truth is directing the faith of his people, and encouraging their 
prayers and hopes, the wheel of his providence is rolling right 
on, and bringing into a full 'accomplishment all the great and 
glorious things that he has ever spoken. 

But the chief instrumentality and agency in introducing the 



PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 767 

4 

Millennium will be the faithful preaching of the gospel and the 
faithful efforts of God's people, accompanied (as they will be) by 
the poiuer and blessing of the Holy Spirit. It is in this way that 
religion has always been promoted in the world. Under the 
former dispensation there was the ministry of judges and proph- 
ets, scribes and priests. At the first introduction of the gospel 
there was the ministry of the apostles, with their coadjutors and 
successors. And so it has been in all periods since. God has 
not sent back the dead from their abodes in the other world to 
preach to the living on the earth. Nor has he employed the 
ministry of angels for the publication of the gospel and the con- 
version of souls. He has made use of their ministry for various 
other purposes, but never for this. Nor if he had seen fit thus 
to employ them, is it likely that they would have had much suc- 
cess. They could not have entered into our feeliugs, or sym- 
pathized with us, or addressed us in the touching language of 
experience. The best agent for the conversion of sinners is, 
undoubtedly, a converted, sinner. He who has himself felt the 
terrible power of sin and been delivered from it ; he who, having 
tasted the wormwood and the gall, has had the cup of bitterness 
removed, — such an one will know, much better than an angel 
can, how to sympathize with the wanderer in all the stages of 
his downward career, and how to guide his faltering feet back- 
ward into the path of peace. 

Those who insist on the necessity of Christ's personal presence, 
in order to the coming in of the Millennium, are wont to depreciate 
the power of the gospel, in the ordinary method of administering 
it. "The nations will never be converted by such an instru- 
mentality, or in any such w r ay." But these persons must have 
forgotten both the representations of Scripture on the subject, 
and the glorious conquests which the gospel, when accompanied 
by the Spirit's power, has already achieved. What cannot that 
instrument accomplish, which the inspired writers have described 
as "quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword," and 
"mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strongholds" ? 
What has not this instrument effected in the hands of glowing 
and faithful preachers, when set home by the influence of the 
Holy Ghost? Only a short time elapsed, in the first age of the 



768 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

church, before it could be said of the apostles and evangelists, 
"Their sound has gone out into all the earth and their words to 
the end of the world." Nor does that age stand alone in testi- 
fying to the gospel's power. With what rapidity did it spread, 
and what mighty obstacles did it overcome, in the days of the 
Eeformers ? In the course of thirty years the light of evangeli- 
cal truth had pervaded half Europe, and deeply penetrated the 
other half. Had the work gone forward through another half 
century, as it did during these thirty years, all nations might 
have been brought to the feet of the Saviour, and the promised 
Millennium had been realized. 

And so it was with the Moravians, or United Brethren. When 
they commenced their missionary operations, their number did 
not exceed that of an ordinary congregation ; and they were 
more limited in point of pecuniary resources than of men. And 
yet, in a few years, their missions were found in every quarter 
of the globe. They seemed likely, for a time, to fill the world 
with their doctrine. 

In view of facts such as these, we see what the gospel, ear- 
nestly administered, and accompanied by the Spirit's power, is 
able to accomplish, We need not the ministry of angels to give 
efficiency to the truth of God. We need not the gift of miracles, 
or the risen dead, or the personal appearance of the Lord Jesus 
Christ. We only need warm hearts, and devoted hands, quick- 
ened and encouraged by his spiritual presence. When the Lord 
shall stir up his people to pray earnestly, and give liberally, and 
labor faithfully and perse veringly, for the advancement of his 
kingdom ; when he shall shed down his Spirit to excite to effort, 
and bless effort, so that his people shall not labor in vain ; then 
shall the gospel's power be speedily and universally acknowl- 
edged, and all the good and glorious things which have been 
spoken respecting Zion shall be fulfilled. 

Still another means which God may employ, in bringing in 
the millennial state, is the destruction of the incorrigibly wicked.. 
It is by no means certain that, previous to the Millennium, all" 
the inhabitants of the earth are to be converted. Vast multi- 
tudes of them may be, and probably will be, cut off. In the 
progress of things, the gospel will be universally diffused. It 



PKOSPECTS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 769 



* 



will be preached in some form, to every creature. . All those 
who embrace it, and enroll themselves on the side of God and 
his people, will be safe. But those who obstinately persist in 
rejecting it, and in opposing the triumphs of the Son of God, 
will be taken out of the way. As much as this is pretty clearly 
indicated in a variety of Scriptures. The power symbolized by 
the little horn of Daniel's fourth beast is represented as terribly 
destroyed; — immediately following which, "the kingdom, and 
dominion, and greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven 
is given to the people of the saints of the Most High" (Dam vii. 
26). So of Paul's "man of sin," and "son of perdition," it is 
said, "Whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his 
mouth, and destroy *with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thess. 
ii. 8). And so in the Revelation, immediately preceding the 
annunciation of the Millennium, all the fowls of heaven are sum- 
moned together " unto the supper of the great God ; that they 
may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the 
flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that 
sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both 
small and great" (Rev. xix. 18). Here, certainly, are the 
symbols of great and terrible destruction ; and the succeeding 
verses inform us who it is that is to be destroyed. It is "the 
beast, and the false prophet that wrought miracles before him." 
"These both were cast alive into a lake of tire, burning with 
brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him 
that sat upon the horse ; and all the fowls were filled with their 
flesh." 

In the judgment of some of the best commentators, the same 
power is denoted by Daniel's "little horn," and Paul's "man of 
sin," and John's "beast and false prophet ;" and this power is 
the Papacy, including its civil and ecclesiastical dominion. 
This power has long been the grand enemy of God and man ; 
and is likely to be so for a while to come. In the progress of 
events it may be expected to concentrate, within its own bosom, 
nearly all the organized opposition to the cause and kingdom of 
Christ, which is found on the earth. It may be expected to 
array itself against Gad and his church, in every form of hos- 

«• 97 



770 CHEISTIAK THEOLOGY. 

tility which Jesuitical and diabolical ingenuity can devise. But 
it shall come to its end, and there shall be none to help it. It 
shall be utterly destroyed, and that without remedy. And then 
shall be ushered in that glorious day, when there shall be 
"nothing left to hurt or destroy in all. God's holy mountain ; " 
— when "the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, 
as the waters cover the sea." 

But this brings us to another inquiry, in the progress of this 
discussion : When shall the millennial glory of the church be 
realized? On this point it becomes every interpreter of the 
divine word to speak modestly and cautiously. It is not for us 
to know definitely the times and the seasons which the Father 
hath put in his own power. Still, it does hot follow that we 
may not know something. Daniel understood, not from direct 
revelation, but from books, that the time drew nigh when his 
people were to be restored to their own land. And the learned 
Jews were censured by our Saviour for not understanding "the 
signs of the times." 

In regard to the question before us, we have two sources of 
evidence, — the word of God, and the providence of God. And 
from both these lights I think we may gather that the latter- 
day glory of Zion draweth night. 

*I am one of those who believe that the "little horn" of 
Daniel, and "the man of sin" of Paul, and "the beast and 
the false prophet" of John, — all which symbols, as before said, 
denote the Papacy, — are to continue 1,260 years.- I cannot 
stop to assign reasons here ; but such is my opinion. The prin- 
cipal difficulty lies in ascertaining when the Papacy, — in its 
antichristian, hornlike, beastlike character, — originated. The 
church of Rome was once a holy church, — as holy as any, in 
the times of the apostles. In the progress of years, it came 
to be an antichristian comrnunhy. At wmat period then, — 
whereabouts in its history, was the terrible transition made? 
When did the church of Rome cease to be a Christian church, 
and became antichrist? When did it become a beast, a horn, 
in the sense of the prophets ? 

These questions are not easily answered. The change in the 



PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 771 

character of the once holy church of Rome was not instantane- 
ous, bnt progressive. Its usurpations were gradually assumed ; 
its abominations were gradually accumulated ; so that it is not 
easy to fix upon any one point, in the history of this church, 
and say, — here the Papacy originated. 

There are three events, however, recorded in its history, 
which to my own mind, look more like the origin of the Pa- 
pacy than any other. The first took place when the Pope of 
Rome was declared universal bishop, about the year 606. The 
second took place when the church of Rome became openly 
and professedly idolatrous, — the advocate and supporter of 
image worship, — in the year 727. 1 The third event occurred 
when the Pope became a temporal prince, and took rank among 
the civil sovereigns of Europe, about the year 656. Popery now 
became a civil power, a horn in the sense of the prophets. I am 
satisfied that the Papacy, in its antichristian character, did not 
commence earlier than the first of these periods, nor later than 
the third. If it commenced at the first period, and is to con- 
tinue 1,260 years, its termination is just upon us. If it com- 
menced at the second period, or the third, or anywhere between 
the two, its end is not far distant. It is comparatively near at 
hand. And when the judgment does set upon this antichristian 
power, to "consume aiid destroy it unto the end," then the latter- 
day glory of Zion will begin to shine. 

There is another line of prophecy, which leads us pretty obvi- 
ously to the same result. Among the symbolical representa- 
tions of the Apocalypse is the sounding of the seven trumpets. 
• The blasts of these trumpets are all of them prophetical , denot- 
ing events of great interest to the church, which, in the days of 
the writer, were far future. I have neither the time nor the 
ability to go into a minute explanation of them. Suffice it to 
say that, in the judgment of the best commentators, the first 
four trumpets set forth that train of calamities which befell the 
Western Roman Empire, between the fifth and seventh centu- 

1 At this time the church of Rome is supposed to have become "the great whore " of 
Babylon. See Rev. xvii. Idolatry, in the church of God, is often set forth under the image 
of whoredom. See Ezek. xvi. 



772 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

ries, and by which this great empire was broken up. The 
fifth trumpet brings before us the rise of Mohammedanism, and 
the Saracen conquests, occurring in the seventh and eighth cen- 
turies, and reaching down as far as the thirteenth. The sixth 
trumpet portends the rise of the Turkish empire, by which the 
Saracen conquests were superseded, Constantinople was taken, 
and the Eastern Roman Empire was dissolved. And as the 
Turkish empire has long since passed its zenith, and is appar- 
ently verging to its dissolution, it is with good reason concluded 
that the blast of the sixth trumpet is now nearly or quite ended. 
We are hence led to look for the sounding of the seventh trumpet, 
as a near and certain event ; and this is to usher in the glorious 
kingdom of Christ. "The seventh angel sounded, and there 
were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this 
world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his 
Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever" (Rev. xi. 15). 

The providence of God, as well as his word, is clearly indi- 
cating that the latter-day glory of the church is now near at 
hand. Of course, we can but just,enter upon this interesting 
field of discussion here. We can but touch upon a few topics, 
the full consideration of which would require volumes. 

How much has been done, during the last half century and 
a little more, towards putting an end to unchristian practices, 
and removing obstructions out of the way, so that the gospel 
may have free course, run, and be glorified ! Intemperance, 
slavery, persecution, war, with many of the kindred vices, have 
come under a most searching examination and discussion, and 
can never again be regarded as they were before. Systems of 
idolatry, too, have been shaken; hoary despotisms have been 
undermined ; and a struggle has been going on between the 
rights of the people and the usurpations of kings, which will 
not be likely to cease until the end is attained. Unknown 
parts of the earth have been explored, and nations before inac- 
cessible to the gospel have been laid wide open to its sanctify- 
ing influence. 

Meanwhile, the Bible has been translated into most of the 
languages of the world, and is being circulated, by thousands 



PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 773 

and millions, in every quarter of the globe. Tracts and relig- 
ions books are multiplied ; schools are established ; Christian 
missionaries are raised up, and sent forth to publish the gospel 
in all lands. 

And while these things are doing for the heathen abroad, the 
tgood wor,k at home is not wholly neglected. Sabbath schools 
are established in all Christian countries, and a vastly increased 
attention is paid to the religious instruction of the young. Con- 
certs of prayer are universally observed, in which to supplicate 
the outpouring of God's Spirit upon the churches at home and 
the missions abroad ; and, what is better than all, God's Spirit 
is poured out, and thousands upon thousands have been brought 
to the knowledge of the truth. In short, Christians have actu- 
ally set themselves to the work, — not with the zeal and fervor 
that they should, but still with some degree of earnestness, — 
the work of the world's conversion ; and God has blessed, and 
is blessing them in it ; and they stand pledged to pursue it 
with unflinching perseverance, until the nations are given to 
Christ. 

Nor are the forces of the grand enemy of God and his church 
unmoved by all this. They see what is going on, and whither 
the course of things is tending, and they are stirring up all their 
strength to oppose the triumphs of. the Son of God. Satan is 
coming out in great wrath, as we might expect he would, under 
the impression that his time is short. Lines are already draw- 
ing, and sides are taking, and all things seem preparing for a 
conflict, — perhaps the final conflict, — which is to precede the 
ushering in of the universal kingdom of Christ. 

Thus we see that the providence of God, as well as his word, 
betokens the speedy triumph of the gospel. Both his provi- 
dence and his word conspire to assure us, that the world's 
redemption draweth nigh. * 

There yet remain some minor questions in regard to the Mil- 
lennium, with the consideration of which this discussion will be 
concluded. 

1. How long will the Millennium be likely to continue? The 
Bible says a thousand years ; and unless there are very strong 



774 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

reasons to the contrary, we are bound to acquiesce in this con- 
clusion. Some interpreters, reckoning a clay for a year, have 
thought that it might continue 360,000 years. But I cannot be 
of this opinion. For, in the absence of wars, and those other 
causes of premature destruction which have hitherto prevailed, 
in 360,000 years the earth would be entirely filled with inhab* 
itants ; — so filled, according to the computations of some, as 
not to allow a square foot to each individual. We are, then,. 
either to limit the Millennium to a thousand literal years or we 
are to suppose this number to stand for a long, unknown period, 
— the definite for the indefinite. 

2. Will the Jews be restored to their own land, during the 
Millennium ? As the Jews are strongly attached to the Holy 
Land, and are looking toward it with intense expectation, it is 
altogether .probable, when existing obstructions shall be re- 
moved, that multitudes of them will flock thither, and there 
be converted and reside. It is likely that nearly all the future 
inhabitants of Palestine may be Jews. .Such a supposition is 
altogether reasonable; and the language of Scripture seems 
rather to favor it. But that the entire body of the Israelites 
will be shut up together in that country, through the whole 
Millennium, forming a distant church (as some suppose), and 
enjoying privileges beyond those of their Gentile brethren, I 
see no reason, from a sober interpretation of Scripture, to 
believe. 

3. What is to be the state of the world during the Millen- 
nium? The Millennium will be a season of universal peace. 
Wars will be unknown. Men will "beat their swords into 
ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks ; neither 
shall they learn war any more." Tyranny, oppression, slavery, 
and everything which conflicts with the kind, benevolent spirit 
of the gospel Will be done away. And as vice at that period 
will have no victims, and the cause of premature sickness and 
mortality will in great measure cease to operate, it may be sup- 
posed that the human race will rapidly increase, and that the 
earth will be speedily filled with inhabitants. Still, as there 
will be so much temperance in eating and drinking, and the 



PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 775 

means of acquiring a subsistence will be so generally and per- 
fectly understood, there will doubtless be an abundance for the 
supply of human wants. 

Vast advances will doubtless be made in every branch of use- 
ful knowledge, and the arts will be carried to the highest de- 
gree of perfection. Let any one consider the improvements 
which have been made in the arts during the last fifty years, 
and then, casting his eye forward, conceive of improvements as 
going on in the same ratio for a thousand years to come, and he 
may form some idea* of the state of things in this respect at the 
close of the Millennium. 

But the grand, distinguishing characteristic of the millennial 
period, — that which lies at the foundation of all the rest, — 
will be religious knowledge, holiness, and joy. God will then 
be known in all the earth ; will be universally loved and served ; 
and that inward satisfaction which flows from communion with 
him will be everywhere enjoyed. Churches will be planted 
and will prosper in all lands ; the gospel will be preached to 
every creature ; children will be early converted and brought to 
the knowledge of the truth ; opposition, if it exist, will be con- 
cealed, and restrained ; and true religion will predominate over 
everything, and fill the earth. Men will have no longer any 
occasion to say one to another, "Know the Lord; because all 
will know him, from the least even unto the greatest." The 
earth will be full of the knowledge and love of God, as the 
waters fill the channels of the deep. 

The moral purpo'ses to be answered by the Millennium are 
numerous and great. God will show in this way his love to his 
church, his care of it, and his perfect ability to protect and en- 
large it. He will show his entire control over the hearts of 
men, and the ease with which he can restrain and subdue human 
wickedness. He will show his absolute power over the spirits 
of darkness, to bind or loose, as seemeth'good in his sight. 

In the Millennium God will show of what the soul of man is 
capable, even in its present state ; of what the earth is capable ; 
and what it might have been thousands of years before, but for 
the prevalence of human wickedness. 



776 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

In the Millennium God will display his faithfulness, in caus- 
ing his Son to see the full travail of his soul, and in causing all 
his glorious predictions respecting Zion to be accomplished. 
And having cheered his laboring, distressed people, through a 
long series of ages with the prospect of this glorious day, he 
will in the progress of it bring an innumerable multitude to 
heaven, who might otherwise have sunk down to hell ; will 
consummate the triumphs of his church on earth, and fill the 
world above with his glory and his praise forever. 



INDEX 



93 



, 



INDEX 



Ability, natural and moral, .... 
distinction important, 
Adam and Eve, their fall not unaccountable, 

tbe curse upon them, 
Angels, the doctrine of, 

their employments, . 

the fallen, their existence and employments, 
of the churches not bishops, 
Annihilation, different forms of the doctrine, 
arguments for it considered, 
arguments against it, 
bad tendencies of the doctrine, 
Apocryphal books, why rejected, . 
Apostles, their testimony examined, 

not bishops, 
Arguments h priori for the divine existence, 
Argument from design vindicated, . 
Assumptions in the argument a posteriori, 
Atheistical objections considered, . 
Atonement, its necessity proved, . 
why necessary, . 

by the sufferings and death of Christ, 
objections to this view, 
how efficacious, . 
objections to the view taken, . 
universal as to its sufficiency, 
accepted of the Father, 
importance of the doctrine, 
connected with moral government, 

Backslider, how differ from the sinner, 
Baptism of proselytes, 

of John not Christian, 
import of, 

not immersion exclusively, 
not to be repeated, . 
proper subjects of, . 
of infants, arguments for, . 
in place of circumcision, . 
Baptized children not church-members 

sustain a covenant relation to the church 
Bible, the fact of it proves divine existence. 
Bishop and Presbyter, the same originally, 
Christ, his Divinity, . 
his humanity, . 
his mediatorship, 
why called the Son of Q-od, 
his sufferings, 
his intercession, 
Church, signification of, 
when instituted, 
first, patriarchal, 



Page 

307-313 

315 



223-226 

228 

228-232 

655 

610 

611-616 

616-623 

623-625 

71-75 

96-99 

652 

26 

44-46 

28 

41-48 

405-413 

410-413 

415 

416-418 

419-424 

416-417 

425 

426 



268 



684-6S8 

688 

691-698 



706 

35 

650-657 

153-156 

157 

158 

160 

427-431 



640 
640 
641 



780 



INDEX. 



and deacons 



Church, second, national, 

third, congregational, 

a voluntary association, 

terms of membership, 

the question of creeds and covenants, 

its independence, 

fellowship, . 

its officers, 

the claim of bishops considered, 

two orders of officers, presbyters 

discipline defined, . 

proper subjects of, 
its objects, 

the satisfaction required, 
prospects of in this world, . 
Close communion disproved, 

how removed, . 
objections considered, 
Conscience described, 

its true dictates to be obeyed, 
Consubstantiation described and refuted, 
Councils, mutual and ex parte, 
Covenant of redemption, 

of grace, . . . 

of the visible church, 
Creation explained, . 
of angels, 
of this world, 

Days, in G-en. i. 1, literal days, 
Death threatened to our first parents eternal death, 
eternal, why not immediately executed, " . 
temporal described, ... 

terminates our probation, 
its procuring cause sin, 
its final causes, .... 

its immediate consequences, 
Decrees or purposes of Cod, 

distinct from his law, 

his desires, 
foreknowledge, and 
universal, 
eternal, 

objections considered, 
Depravity, universal, 

total, ..... 

what not implied in it, 
what implied, 
proved, 
natural, ..... 
connection with Adam's sin, . 
what not implied, 
objections considered, . 
importance of the doctrine, 
Development theory considered, 

Election explained, ..... 
proved, . . .' . 

not grounded on foreknowledge, . 



precede it, 



INDEX. 



781 



Election not an arbitrary decree, . 
objections considered, 

Faitb in Christ described, . 
why necessary, 
how it differs from faith in G-od, 

Geology confirms the Bible, 
God a personal being, 

the idea of not innate, . 

not conscious of his existence, 

proofs of his existence, . 

attributes of, 

his omnipresence, 

his moral attributes, 

his. decrees or purposes, 

his ultimate end in his works, 

his essential glory, and declarative glory, 

his highest glory, and the greatest good, the same, 

the Supreme Disposer, and a Moral Governor, 

to be regarded and loved in both these characters, . 

his moral government described, 

his will the exponent of right, but not the author of it, 

his great plan the best conceivable, . 
Godhead, personal distinctions in, . 



Page 

186 
196-198 

478 
481 
482 



243 
25 

27 

27 

28-40 

49-58 

50 

52-54 

182-193 

256-263 

257 

260 

264-275 



321-324 

351 

164-168 



Heathen, present state of, 
Heaven, a place, 

its enjoyments, 
Hell, a place, . 

its miseries eternal, 
its punishments not disciplinary, 
objections to endless punishment, 
Holiness, in its nature, active, 

objections considered, 
importance of this view, . 
consists in love, . 



Infant character, 
Infants not mere animals, 

not depraved without sin, . 
sinners, 

not sinned in a previous state, 
not an inactive sinful nature, 
actual sinners — selfish from the first, 
objections considered, 
Infant baptism, history of, 
import of, 
benefits of, 
Infidels, characters of, 
Inspiration explained, 
promised, 
claimed by the sacred writers, 
always held by the church, 
objections considered, . 
importance of, . 
Intermediate place disproved, 



574 

575 

575 

576-597 

578 

583-597 

330-333 

333 

335 

337 

391-404 



394-397 

397 

399 

399-403 

399-403 

697-698 

701-705 

708-710 

64 

121-124 

128 

128 

130-132 

132-138 

139 

542-547 



782 



INDEX. 



ectly yielding to them, 



Judgment general, the fact of it, 

the time of it, 

who the judge, 

who judged, 

for what judged 

its duration, 

its object, 

its issues, 
Justification, legal, described, 

evangelical, described 
same as forgiveness, 
the sole ground of it, 
the conditions of it, 
Paul and James reconciled, 
importance of the doctrine, 

Lord's Supper, in place of the Passover, 

designed to be perpetuated, 
early perversion of it, 
import of it, 
an ordinance for Christians, 

Man before the fall, . 

on trial, . 
Matter not eternal, 
Means of grace described, . 

sinners to use them, by dir 
Millennium, not introduced by the personal coming of Christ, . 

to be introduced, in part, by providential arrangements, 

by the faithful preaching of the gospel, and efforts of 

people, .... 

by the destruction of the incorrigibly wicked 
when introduced, 
how long continue, 
state of the world, . . ! 

Mind, existence of, proves the divine existence, . 

its philosophy closely connected with theology, 
to be considered under four divisions, 
the sensational described, 
the intellectual, .... 

the emotional, ..... 
Miracles prove the divine existence, 

explained, ..... 
prove the Sci-iptures from G-od, . 
vindicated, ..... 
Motives, three classes of, 

Mystery of the incarnation, .... 
of the Trinity, .... 

Necessity, natural and moral distinguished, 
New Testament, the canon of, how settled, 

Old Testament, sanctioned by Christ, 

Christ's the same as ours, 
Ordination, what, ..... 

Perfection described, . . . . . 

arguments for it considered, 
against it, 



Ood : 



Page 
567 
570 
570 
570 
571 
571 
572 
573 
584 
585 
585 
587 
488 



729 
730 
730 
737 
740 



353-359 

355 

28-33 

513-515 
516 

756-764 
766 

766 



770 


773 


774 


34 


276 


277 


277 


278-281 


281-294 


36 


107 


109-113 


107-110 


288, 293 


157 


177 


313 


74 


69 


70 


661 


498 


500-504 


504-509 



INDEX. 



783 















Page 


Perfection not conditioned on faith, ........ 505 


pretensions to it injurious, 












509 


Perseverence of saints explained, . 












591 


proved, .... 












592-595 


objections considered, 












595 


Persons in the Godhead, how understood, 












172 


Peter, no supremacy among the apostles, . 












743-748 


never bishop of Rome, 












749 


Prayer, answers to, prove the divine existence, . 












37 


described, ..... 












520 


of faith, what not implied in it, 












521-523 


described, .... 












524 


its efficacy explained, 












524 


objections considered, 












525 


its great object stated, 












529 


Presbyters, lay, no authority for, . 












700 


Prophecies prove the Scriptures from G-od, 












114 


Providence of G-od explained, 












245-247 


particular, 












247 


universal, 












248 


how administered, 












250 


objections considered, 












250 


desirable, 












252 


importance of the doctrine, . 












252-255 


Popery, fundamental principle of, . 












• 742 


Popes have no supremacy from Peter, 












751-753 


Purposes of God, learned from his works, 












203-210 


abuses of, . 












211-216 


uses of, . 












216-220 


Regeneration, its necessity, ......... 


452 


its nature, ..... 










453-457 


preparatory work, .... 










455 


an active change, like conversion, . 










457-461 


importance of this view, 










459 


its causes, 










462-463 


work of the Spirit, and yet the subject active, 










464-465 


operation of the Spirit direct, 










466 


how differs from sanctification, 










468 


Repentance described, ..... 










. 471-474 


why necessary, ..... 










. 475-476 


Reprobation explained, ..... 










198 


unconditional, but not arbitrary, 










199 


not the exact counterpart of election, 










199 


objections considered, . . 










200 


Resurrection of the body, ..... 










. 554-564 


same body raised, but not the same particles, 










556 


not the same properties, 










558 


of the body proved, .... 










. 559-564 


to take place at the last day, 










564 


first resurrection, what, 










565 


Revelation, need of, . 










. 59-67 


why not given to all, .... 










65 


Right and wrong, ground of the distinction, 










. 317-329 


opinions entertained, 










317 


difference lies not in education, customs, etc 


•> 








318 


not in tbe tendencies of actions, 










319 


not in the mere will of God, . 










. 321-325 


not in the constitution of our minds, 












324 



784 



INDEX. 



Right and wrong, lies ultimately in the nature of God 
is immutable and eternal, 

Sabbath, instituted in paradise, 

sacred among the heathen, 
of universal and perpetual obligation, 
changed to the first day of the week, 
objections to the change, . 
how observed, 
Sacrament, origin and meaning of the term, 

appropriate marks of, . 
Sacraments, the Romish, — five of them rejected 

only two, baptism and the Lord's supper 
on what their efficacy depends 
benefits of, 
Scripture, canon of, . 

its authenticity or genuineness 
its uncorruptedness, 
its various readings, 
credibility of, 

its truth shown by existing facts, 
divine authority of, 
inspiration of, 
interpretation of, . 
Serpent that tempted Eve, what, 

his speaking not a miracle, 
the curse upon him, 
Sin, in its nature active, ' 
objection to this view, . 
importance of this view, 
all resolvable into selfishness, 
introduction of, . 
opinions entertained, 
God could have prevented it, 
why God permitted it, . 
objections considered, . 
Soul, its immortality, 

not material, but spiritual, 
exists separate from the body, 
Souls of the righteous, at death, go immediately 
of the wicked go immediately to hell 
departed, recognize each other, 

know what is done on earth, 
Spirit, his personality, 

his divinity proved, . 
Succession in the divine mind, 

Transubstantiation, when introduced, 

disproved, 
Trinity, explained, ... 

proved, 

traces of it among the heathen, 

objections considered, 

importance of the doctrine, 

Universalism, different forms of, . 
thatofRelly, . 

the fatalist, . 
restoration, . 
Hosea Ballou, 



«H 181950 



M. V** 









W 



# % 




,V ^s V 



5 G°vr-.% ^>:>-V ^£'--V o^r 










v 5 ^ 



5^ ^ ^ 






■■-, 



9m: & °^ ■; 









W : /; %1 










cf 



^.rf 



.4 









% n 







Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
(J Treatment Date: July 2005 



ifc V $ PreseruationTechnologies 



£<& 






^ <?* 



9? 



v v 



A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
{724)779-2111 



^ .& % ^ A^ ^f\^/l/^ "^ -^ ." 



^' 



I* 



<& a 











^ 






^c? 



V X ^ * * o /• %, * ' V V * ^ - o , ^u v \ v 

A G r //7^' 



Q> * 



^ °- 



^ 



* 



^ G - « ^ 









w : 



%<* 










a$? 



^ + .6L Si. *,. ^ r. 






°o. 



\& 



\G 




V 
* %* 






s d 

^ 



